Jump to content

Talk:2010s/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Too biased to the negative

We have sections on disasters, nuclear threats, etc, but no sections on any positive trends or events. Why not? DriveMySol (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What prominent notable postive trends happend in this decade (or any decade for that matter) which deserve their own section in this article? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

HMMM. Civil rights, gay rights, environmentalism, cures for diseases? DriveMySol (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

For the pronunciation, they reference 2001, but they don't reference its sequel 2010. I'm very curious as to the pronunciation of this film. I'm pretty sure it followed the 2001 model, but not quite. Can someone look this up, I cannot find any info anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.44.116 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, there's never going to be a real resolution to this. People will say it as they want, and nobody is actually "right" in how it'll be said. Some will say "twenty-ten" while others "two thousand-ten (my preference at this moment)". It's like the same issue with some still calling Pluto a planet (which I still do); a small committee of around 600 people decided this--what about the other 5,000,000,400 on this planet? Do they have a say? It's not a big deal on the long run; it's only a year name... And shut down anyone who tells you otherwise. D4S (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
How about we move "pronunciation debate" further down the page? It takes up a huge chunk of space for something so trivial. Now that the decade is underway, and there's a real news item of significance (the Haiti earthquake) and more coming, it seems silly to lead off with all this talk of Teens and Tens and the like. Just a thought. Mad Thinker (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
In the year 202516 yes, 200506 years in the future (I am being optimistic), how do you pronounce it? twentytwentyfivesixteen? if yes, then I will most likely still pronounce it twothousandandnine.99.163.51.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Mayan Calendar

Should be mentioned that 2012 is the end of the Mayan Calendar. Lone wolf025 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

apocolypse?

should something be mentioned about the apocolypse and 2012? --MunchableSandwich 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

People have been the end of the world since the begginning of time. The end of the world is probably not going to happen this decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.139.248 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

music

Where do these predictions about music come from? Why would top 40 music in the UK sound anything like music ten years from now? Is there any evidence for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakek101 (talk • contribs).

Not that I know of. I've removed it—in case anyone gets a source for them, here they are:
Also in the 2010's, fashion and music trends might be influenced by a certain nostalgia of the 1990's (which will have started 20 years earlier) comparable to the 90s' infatuation with 70's culture and in turn the 70's infatuation with 50's culture. Rap music will still be the mainstream genre, along with rock and roll, and ethnic music will gradually die.
The pop music of the early 2010s it is going to resemble the sound of the current Top 40 music in the United Kingdom. The chord structure will be less choppy, and there is going to have a quintessinal movement in dance/electronica. Also, the instrumentation will be less more acoustic, and the synthesizer will be more of a background touch to the music instead of the main instrument in the 1980s up to the 2000s.
Fashion will become less grungy and less trashy, but there is a chance of a second grunge movement.
--zenohockey 04:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I am an inclusionist, but what was written there is absolute POV trash, violating WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL alone.--HisSpaceResearch 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks POV on the Hubbert stuff/ hydrocarbon reserves to me? I also do not know what academic research is referred to but believe these statements to be very inaccurate: anyone defend them? --(talk)BozMo 12:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much universally accepted that the oil peak will be sometime in the 2010's...National Geographic just recently had an article about it, and you can't mess with National Geographic... bob rulz 10:57, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've gone through and changed "will be called" to "is expected to be called" and added "twenty"-less versions because: (1) we don't know what will happen to English in the future, and (2) it's kind of 20th-century-ist to assume future generations will add "twenty-" to decade names.

The sentence Some ancient astromoners predicted that in 2012 a catastrophic event would happen somewhere in space (perhaps on earth) is too fluffy, just who are these Some ancient astromoners?

More likely they mean philosophers.

"Wireless technology, which first emerged in the 1980s with the cell phone, likely will expand to the extent that by the end of the decade power outlets may become largely obsolete."

Um? 1. Wireless tech is often about wireless networking, not power. 2. What, pray tell, will we charge our devices and batteries from? Has any commercial technology proposed to replace the wall-outlet power system?

Tesla coils! Giant towers spewing lighting! Woo-hoo! And flying cars! Teleporters! Money will be free! And we'll all get brain implants that allow us to predict the future! Which we can't do now. Sadly, it's nonsense. --A D Monroe III 01:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed it. It should only return when someone can explain how wireless technology can replace outlets, for now it's nonsense. - Pyro19 03:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Supernatural predictions

Are there any sources for all these calamitous predictions—which, of course, have been made innumerable times already—in the last section? I'm removing them until there are. --zenohockey 06:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nineteen-teens"?

I've removed the following: 

...the 1910 decade has been popularly referred to as the nineteen-teens.

Personally, I've never heard it referred to as anything but the nineteen-tens, and Google gives very few results for either (about 600-400, favoring -"tens"). I'm currently undecided as to whether the sentence should be left out entirely, and if not, whether the above portion should refer to both -teens and -tens. --zenohockey 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Computing

The implications of an end to moores law are very important and its good theyve been mentioned here, I dont think many people have realised this problem which is getting rather close now in terms of computing power. I've added a bit about fears that an end to computor growth could be damaging to the world economy as technology like computors, mobile phones , ipods would be unable to progress in decreasing size/ cost/ power. I think there is some research going on to try to extend this limit, but even if any attempts work, this would probably only extend the power by a factor. There was a sentence about quantum computing which ive made a bit less definite:- Even if we have breakthroughs in quantum computing by then it doesn't mean that this will be generally useful, only certain kinds of problems are theoretically solved faster on a quantum computor. I feel that the sentence could give the impression that quantum computing is a replacement for standard computing.

"conventional CPUs are expected to reach their maximum computing potential, according to Moore's Law."

Moore's Law says nothing of any maximum of any kind. Moore himself has stated on more recent occasions (since the inception of the law) that he does not expect it to continue forever, but a date or even a decade has not been mentioned. The law is a method of estimating speed of advancement, not estimating an end point or maximum.

Also, other technologies are being researched to help prolong Moore's law as long as possible (besides quantum computing.) Various nanotechnologies, fuller inclusion of flash memory, multi-core systems, etc. I don't really think any of this deserves mention here, as no one knows what will happen. However, simply saying that "CPUs are expected to reach their maximum computing potential." isn't really accurate. There are many people that believe this, and many that don't. Some expect the advancement to continue all the way to the point of a technological singularity.

I fully agree, there is really no reason why it should be mentioned, since it's just not true. It would be extremely weird if the increase of computational capacity would cease to exist. The mention of CPUs "reaching their maximum computing potential" should be removed, since it's false. If there's no objections, I'll remove it later. Ran4 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
One 2005 paper says 13 years from then giving the date 2018. This is too soon. Better estimates give 30 to 40 years. However, one fact is certain, and that is no computer will ever be built with greater processing power than what can be built within the average lifetime of anyone born today. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Phone number, date styles

Continuing a trend starting in the late 1990s or early 2000s, telephone numbers with periods or dots between each sets of digits will rapidly predominate, so that by the end of the decade hyphenated phone numbers will become virtually obsolete. Periods will continue to become more popular in date formatting. The use of the format in the proposed .tel domain could play a role in this possible shift.

I've noticed this too, but is it anything more than a personal observation? If so, it shouldn't go in the article. --zenohockey 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Anniversaries

How about standardizing terminology: either [bi]centennial or 100th/200th anniversary, but not some of each. Matchups 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed all instances of the former terminology to the latter. --zenohockey 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WWII

It is likely that by the end of the decade, there will be under a handful, if any, surviving veterans from World War I. Equally, it is likely that the last people born in the Nineteenth Century will die during - DON'T they mean WWII seeing now there are only a small handful if any WWI veterans because by that time even if you enlisted into the army hen you were 10 you would be well over 100 years old ==

I'm fairly sure that what the sentence says is correct; by the 2010s, the youngest people who enlisted into the army would be well, pretty much ancient. There are some people who would live that long, albeit a handful as the article said. On the other hand, in the 2010s, there would be more than "a handful" of veterans from WWII.
I vaguely recall seeing a news article related to this (though I could be remembering wrongly). Unfortunately, I don't know which article this was: in the meantime, I'll tag the sentence for citations (should have done so the first time around). --Talon Artaine (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't need citations for stuff that is common knowledge or that any adult can reasonably be expected to know. Given that its reasonable to expect people to be able to do simple maths, given that its reasonable to expect people to know the dates of WWI and given that its reasonble to expect people to know that very few people live beyong 110, I don't think it needs a source. --Robdurbar 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Predictions

Shouldn't that prediction under that category go under the next decade?69.204.219.97 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New, encyclopedic & cited "pronunciation" section

I have added a new (rather lengthy) section on the pronunciation issues with 21st century years to this article, and would appreciate comments on it here. Any fixes you feel are needed, feel free to change them in the article. But please, do join me in conversation here prior to fully reverting. Thank you for co-operation. -- Sarcha 45 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mainly, thank fook that someone has tried to add a decent section in, rather than the repeated addition of nonesense. I've added a couple of 'cn' tempaltes that could do with sourcing, but I'm reluctant to just chuck out. I'm not too keen on blogs as sources either... --Robdurbar 09:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. I'll try to find some permissable sources for the citationed-needed material, but I'm not sure why it's unclear that many English-speakers use "two thousand" rather than "twenty" at the moment to describe current years. I've never heard anyone say "twenty oh seven", and if so I'm positive its the minority spoken pronounciation. I've heard hundreds of people say "two thousand and". In either case, I'll try to find some sources for those, and if not I'll reword or remove some of it. Thanks -- Sarcha 45 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Teens?

This decade is expected to be called the tens, the twenty-tens, or maybe even the teens.

Is there some sort of source for this?? ĞavinŤing 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • This is just ignorant... no offence GavinTing, but I think everyone knows that the 2010s are going to be called the teens in some way-shape-or form. Personally, everyone I talk to calls the decade the Tweenz (merge of Twenty and Teen). However this is probrably a local phrase... (Tigerghost 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

2010 the tenth year of the 00s?

Shouldn't the year 2010 be a part of the 00s and not the 2010s? Since you start counting from one January 1 2001 (the beginning of the first year of the 00s), that would make 2009 the ninth year of the decade and not the tenth. There fore year 2010 is the tenth year of the 00s and not the first year of the 10s. Emperor of Fatalism 12:05 P.M 25/07/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.117.185 (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC) The 2000s start on 1st January 2000, 2000 is a 2000s year, but is in the previous millennium. 2010 is the first year of the 2010s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.136.199 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. 2000
  2. 2001
  3. 2002
  4. 2003
  5. 2004
  6. 2005
  7. 2006
  8. 2007
  9. 2008
  10. 2009
--Jatkins (talk - contribs) 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
By this counting, the 10s (1st decade A.D. that is) would've started with year zero. Yet, there is no year zero, which means the 10s began with 1 and ended with 10, and therefore the 2010s actually begin with 2011 and end with 2020. That would be correct, but unfortunately, almost no one is counting this way. --bender235 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The first decade AD is defined (correctly or not) on Wikipedia as the 0s, consisting of 1 AD - 9 AD (which is debatable, because 9 years isn't technically a decade). Even if it's incorrect, historically we've always considered decades to start with a 0 and end with a 9 (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc.), so changing it for the decade in question doesn't make much sense. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Historians start a new decade with 1 not 0! - Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.54.97 (talk • contribs)
Yeah but... Wikipedia is not about what people believe but about what is true. I'm changing that.--Fluence (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You certainly are changing Wikipedia is about what is true. Reverting. AGAIN (although not necessarily under your name). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
no. here's why. 2011-2020 is the second decade of the 21st century, but 2010-2019 is the 2010s or "tens". Darkohead (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
See 1710s, 1810s, 1910s. Also, see Decade... Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 through 2019 is the 2010s, however, that is not the 2nd decade of the 21st century. The 21st century started 2001/1/1 and goes up to 2101/1/1. The second decade of the 21st century is 2011 through 2020. It is, however, correct to claim that the 2010s are the second decade of the 2000s. Changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.4.216 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you say that the 2010s decade begins in 2011, its like saying that the 1960s didn't start until 1961, which would mean that 1960 would have marked the final year of the 1950s.

22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Any ten year period can refer as a decade, and any 100 year period can refer as a century. So you may consider 1954-1963 as a decade, and 1820 - 1919 as a century.

Take a look with the wording and periods:
The 2010s : 2010 - 2019
The 21st century : 2001 - 2100
The 3rd millennium: 2001 - 3000

When we call current century, we call the 21st century, rather than 2000s century.
But, when we call current decade, we call it 2010s, rather than 202nd decade.

So the 2010s starts at 2010 and end at 2019.
But if we refer to the 202nd decade, it starts at 2011 and end at 2020. Joe2008 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

merge New Years

There's nothing factual or sourced in the article New Years' 2010, but, even if there were, it should be merged into the "names" section of this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved by deleting the article targeted to be merged in, per expired {{prod}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no year 0 BC or 0 AD. There was 0 (i.e., Zero), and, beginning at that instant (midnight: end of 31December = beginning of 1January) is both the beginning of the year 1BC and the beginning of year 1CE (or as it used to be denoted, 1AD). The First Decade CE ended with the end of the year 10CE, the beginning of the year 11CE. The Tenth Decade CE, the First Century CE ended at the end of the year 100CE, the beginning of 101CE; the First Hundredth Decade CE, the Tenth Century CE, the First Millennium CE ended with the end of the year 1000CE, the beginning of the year 1001CE; the Second Hundredth Decade CE, the 20th Century CE, the Second Millennium CE ended with the end of the year 2000CE, the beginning of the year 2001CE, the beginning of the Third Millennium CE, the beginning of the 21st Century CE, the beginning the first decade of the 21st Century, which decade will end at end of the year 2010CE, the beginning of the year 2011CE. Imzio (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? This article is not about centuries, or millennia. It is about the 2010s decade, so your ramblings about (ordinally referenced) centuries and millennia seem quite inconsequential. --Jmk (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the records

64.7.134.118 (talk · contribs) added this, but LeadSongDog (talk · contribs) deleted it. Rightfully so, because Simmons′ predictions from Twilight in the Desert (2005) now turned out to be wrong. Oil is now at $40, and probably won't reach $200 a barrel within the next decade, let alone 2010. --bender235 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New wave revival

Many magazines predict that by 2011 there will be an early-80s inspired New wave revival and that fashions of the 2010s will be inspired by late 70s/early 80s. I hope they will prove right. 79.132.31.212 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

God no, we don't need any more revivals, we've had nothing but revivals for the past decade or so. People need to stop just copying the 80s and come up with something new. I mean, christ, that was 30 years ago now. Zazaban (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It could happen. Micheal Jackson's recent passing away may only cement it.64.234.100.114 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

best wait 10 years and we may be able to put it in if it happens. right now its original reseach or something Pro66 (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely hope not. I had nightmares after reading that. Popular culture started sucking when it stopped being able to do anything but revive the past. Zazaban (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The future becomes the present

For another month, the 2010s will be just another future decade, but on January 1 it will become the present. At some point, this article is going to have to change focus. I was curious to see if the article for the 2000s decade had anything about how the decade was regarded when looked at from previous decades, and I saw nothing. For example, there's no reference in that article to Arthur C. Clarke's novel, 2001: A Space Odyssey. The editors of the article will have to decide when (or if) to remove the references to Blade Runner, Dark Angel, etc. We have just over 31 days until the new decade arrives, so I thought I'd start the discussion now. Mad Thinker (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Reference reordering

{{editsemiprotected}} Right now, the Fictional Reference section is not organised in any meaningful fashion -- ideally, it would be nice if this could be ordered sequentially by year.

i.e.:

Change FROM:


TO: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soralette (talk • contribs) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


- Soralette (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Celestra (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not yet 2010 for some!

Since some parts of the western hemisphere are still in 2009(North and South America), should'nt the article read" 2010 is the current decade for all of the eastern hemisphere and parts of the western hemisphere." or something like that?


Where i am its 6 o'clock. I know i sound picky and its unimportant, but its the truth for the next 6 hours.

=) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.95.134 (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My fixes

I removed the sections on future sporting events and on fiction set in the 10s because this decade is no longer (entirely) in the future.

I also removed the pronunciation part because it was quite established this decade is called the "Tens". whether it's two thousand tens or twenty tens in long form, it is one or the other, and this decade is not nameless like the '00s is.

I also added some pictures, sections and events.

DriveMySol (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you've removed more than just the pronounciation section. Secondly the content is well referenced, as opposed to your unsubstantiated argument that "tens" is "quite established". Wait for other editors to contribute to the discussion before removing. -Regancy42 (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)
There is no consensus for your major revisions (fixes or not):
  1. There is no consensus as to removal of the sporting events (although I think they should be removed from all decades, there is no reason to start with this one)
  2. There is consensus that the decade is not called the "tens"; "twenty-tens" and "two thousand (and) tens" are both possible names.
  3. There is little consensus for your additions, although those would probably not have been summarily reverted, except that they're difficult to separate from your removals.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove fictional references

I feel these are only suitable for decades in the future. Of course the '10s have just begun, but I still think you should be totally consistent.

Any thoughts?

DriveMySol (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Fictional references to past years/decades should be present, as well as to future ones. In any case, the discussion should be the talk page of WP:YEARS or WP:RY, not here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article in the making

should this article, be an aritcle in the making, basically add details about the decade as we go along, rather than doing it all at the end of the decade, as if you noticed option b leads to people have forgoten alot from the first half, and the article seemed dominated by events, culutre, fashion, exc... from the latter half with not much from half one. --89.100.77.235 (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It seems some editors want to basically keep this as a "future" article, but the 2010s is now, and even by February enough will have happened to have a decent article. DriveMySol (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Year's Eve 2009-10

Could someone mention that the host of the New Year's Eve programs in the US said "two thousand ten" last night? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.235.97 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For the new decade has Wikipedia turned into Twitter? 217.171.129.71 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the Population

The entire section on the pension bomb needs citation. In fact, the pension bomb article is up for deletion, and I also nominate that it be removed as there are no references or reliable sources to back it up. Please discuss.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article pension bomb is not up for deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Montage

Why should there be a montage, at this time? The decade is less than 3% completed, so logically, we should have only about 3% of what the final montage might be. That would probably be one image. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

i agree it be an incomplete image for an inconplete decade which is not good for an enclopedia. Pro66 (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
If the world were to end in 2012, it would be 10% or so <G>. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to have a montage, it's just premature and pretty subjective. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should list specific guidelines regarding these decade photo montages, so that we can clear up this issue, along with others.CatJar (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is inaccurate and misleading.

This article states that the 2010s starts on 1 january 2010, however this is incorrect. I have edited it to include the text below, however this edit was rejected by TreasuryTag on the grounds of no references given despite my addition referencing other pages in wikipedia. This page is currently misleading people and is spreading misinformation, something which I believe strikes against the very purpose of wikipedia.

My rejected edit is included at the foot of this message.

For more evidence that there is no year zero see here: http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-history.html http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/node3.html#SECTION003140000000000000000

... and many other sites on the web.

Can someone with more involvement in wikipedia please pick this up and change this page before wikipedia descends to the level of Yahoo! answers?

My original edit: There is a popular misconception that this decade will begin on January 1, 2010 and this is most likely driven by a mis-understanding of the Gregorian calendar, the calendar currently used by "Western" nations. In this calendar there is no year zero - the calendar went from 1BC to 1AD and therefore the first decade (the first 10 years) of this calendar started on January 1, 1 and completed on December 31, 10. The second decade therefore began on January 1, 11. See this wikipieda articale for further details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero. The misconception most likely arises from our decimal-bias. Since we use base 10 as our numbering system we naturally package together numbers in the same group of 10. Using this approach 2010 logically seems like it should form part of the decade of 2011, 2012, etc., however this is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebulon99 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What is inaccurate, misleading, and unsourced (your source is a Wikipedia article) is that addition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I had assumed that since wikipedia contains such a wealth of valuable information that it would be at least logically consistent. How can you have "facts" within the site that contradict each other? You cannot state that 2010 is the first year of the second decade of the 21st century in one article and also have another article stating that there is no year zero in the Gregorian calendar. If you understood simple logic you would get that, rather than feeling the need to post immature jibes about my post in this edit. — User:zebulon99

(edit conflict) New Year's Eve 2009 marked the end of the decade, according to a multitude of reliable sources, including the BBC and The Guardian. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 09:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
In numerous discussion in Wikipedia it has been cleared up that, though 2011-2020 is the 2nd decade of the 21st century, 2010-2019 are the 2010s. --bender235 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I clarified the wording of the leed a bit to try to reduce the confusion that may have caused some people to change the dates.
The original wording stated (with bolding added by me):
"The 2010s decade, pronounced "twenty-tens"[1], "two thousand (and) tens", or simply "the tens",[2][3] is the second decade of the 21st century. It began on 1 January 2010 and will end on 31 December 2019. It is the current decade."
As brought out in discussions here and elsewhere, the 2010s are not the second decade of the 21st century, that would be 2011-2020. I've modified the wording to state that the second decade starts within the 2010s. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You'll need to either link to those discussions, or cite a reliable source for that claim, please. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Looking over past discussions, it appears to have been used as side arguments to explain why we don't use 2001-2010 or 2011-2020; but has never been directly discussed itself (for example, see the post before mine by Bender235). But, as I can't find a specific discussion on this topic itself, I'll leave it for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Years are counted as they arise, not retrospectively. We are effectively saying "this is the 2010th year", not "we have had 2010 years (and by the way we are now in the 2011th)". Hence, the first ever year in the Gregorian calendar was year 1 (the first year). The 10th year was year 10 and so on. I have searched for a reliable source to prove this, but it's quite hard to find a source to prove a fact that proves itself through the use of simple logic. The best I can come up with are web sites that explain the system. For example this one: http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/cal_art.html states quite clearly that the first year of the Gregorian calendar was year 1. Does it qualify as a reliable source (ie is it on a par with the BBC or the Guardian!) or do I need to actually site a paper published in a recognised journal for the editors if wikipedia to accept that there was no year zero? Any constructive advise would be greatfully received. — User:zebulon99

I understand there was no Year Zero. The period 2010-2019 is not the 201st decade overall. It is however the second decade of the 21st century, because the century did start with a 0. ArtistScientist (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Correction: The centuries start with a one (1), the decades start with a zero (0).
See WP:RY which explains the difference in how the two are used within Wikipedia: "In the Gregorian calendar, the first year of a CE/AD millennium or century always ends with a "1", because there was no year zero. However, the first year of a decade always ends with a "0", because decades are labelled nominally, in order to demarcate sets of similarly named years. (The names of years, themselves, are natural numbers that, relative to the transition between the calendar eras, reflect both an ordinal position and a cardinal length of time.)" As such, the fact that there was no year zero is irrelevant for the decade numbering. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Pedants just have to accept that common usage is that the 21st century started on 1 January 2000, and that the second decade of the 21st century started six days ago. Fences&Windows 01:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Rschubert (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC) All of this is (should be) very straightforward if you are precise and consistent in your terminology. As are pointed out on Wikipedia pages on Decade, Century, and Millennium: a Decade is any interval of 10 years, a Century any interval of 100 years, and a Millennium any interval of 1000 years.

There are two special types of Decades of interest

  • those that begin with the Year 1 AD (decades 1-10, 2-20, ..., 2001-2010, 2011-2020, etc.)
  • those where the 10 years in the Decade differ only in the last digit (so that the 1960s were years of the form 196x, i.e., 1960-1969, and the current Decade of this type is of the form 201x, or 2010-2019).

Similarly, there are two special types of Centuries of interest

  • those that begin with the Year 1 AD (so that the 1st Century is the years 1-100, and the 21st Century is the years 2001-2100)
  • those where the 100 years in the Century differ only in the last 2 digits (so that the 1900s were years of the form 19xx, i.e., 1900-1999, and the current Century of this type is of the form 20xx, or 2000-2099).

The same hold for Millennia:

  • the 3rd Millennium is 2001-3000
  • but the Millennium that started with Y2K is 2000-2099.

So the 2010s are a valid decade, encompassing the years 2010-2019. But it is a mistake for this article to state that the 2010s are "the second decade of the 21st century" -- don't mix one type of decade with the other type of century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschubert (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 January 2010

Agreed that it should not state that the 2010s are "the second decade of the 21st century".
NOTE: I agree that the article should show the 2010s are 2010-2019; afterall, the article is titled "2010s" so it's appropriate that it includes the years in the 201x (2010-2019) range; however, it is not the second decade of the 21st century (at least not the second full decade).
A discussion should probably be started in a central location for that to see if there's consensus of agreement on that - although I have no idea if the better location to start that discussion is here or at WT:RY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in on the above few comments that have it correct. It is fine and correct to define the 2010s as starting Jan 1, 2000 and running through Dec 31st, 2009, which is in accordance with all the other decade definitions / articles on wikipedia and plenty of verified sources. What is NOT correct is to say that the 2010s are the second decade of the 21st century. The 21st century by common definition and plenty of verified sources is 2001-2100. The first decade in the 21st century is therefore 2001-2010 and the second is 2011-2020. So the 2010s != 2nd decade of 21st century -- I hope this deduction would qualify as a routine calculation rather than OR or OS. If you still want to make a claim along this line you could argue that the 2010s are the second decade of the 2000s (century or millennium), but what's the point really? As such, I've removed the claim that the 2010s are the second decade of the 21st century. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So according to some of you, 1990 was part of the 80s? That's ludicrous. 99% of the population isn't so pedantic as to make the "there was no year zero" argument when talking or thinking about a given decade. Thankfully (except on Wikipedia) we only have to hear it every 100 years at the turn of each new century. DMac (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The second decade of the 21st century would be, 2002-2011 (if to you the century start at 2001) or 2001-2010 (if to you the centyy start at 2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.142.4 (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That's more absurd that the usual nonsense. One could argue that the second decade of the 21st century is 2011-2020, rather than 2010-2019, using the conventional definition of "21st century" and "decade", but your statement is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Second decade"

Why do we need to state in the intro that 2010s is the second decade of the 21st century? Other decade articles do not seem to contain similar statements, see e.g. 1970s (no "it is the eighth decade of the 20th century" there), 1980s, 1990s, 2000s (decade), 2020s. Surely just saying which years are encompassed (2010–2019) tells the reader exactly and concisely what the article is about. Besides, that sentence will just keep attracting quarrels from the "2011–2020" folks. Frankly, I don't think it's worth all that trouble. We can simply leave out that troublesome sentence. --Jmk (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops – 1980s does say "It was the ninth decade of the 20th century". I don't see how that is useful, either. --Jmk (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I genuinely don't see what the problem is. It's harmless and conveys information to people, as an encyclopedia should. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What "information" does it convey? Please elucidate your vague comment.People do not usually refer to decades with ordinals, so the sentence seems quite odd in that context. – Concerning the "harmless" part, I think it is clear by now what kind of harm that sentence generates. It has been documented above already. --Jmk (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm baffled by what you don't understand. The information conveyed is precisely what it says, that 2010 is the second decade of the 21st century – that's true, we have reliable sources that state it... what's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 12:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Any piece of text could be defended on those grounds: "it says what it says". The key question is, what is the value of that text? What useful information does it convey to a reader? How does it help them understand the subject better? I think you understand this question perfectly well, you just choose not to answer it. – Besides, your edit comment, where you demand a "reliable source" is completely backwards. You do not need a "reliable source" for stuff that is not included in an article. You need it for stuff that is included. Which reliable sources, by the way, do you have for that stuff? Why are they not cited? edit: now there are sources ok --Jmk (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the accusation! The value of the text is that it puts the decade in context for the readers. I really don't see how I can make this clearer... I've found seven eight and counting reliable sources covering the fact so far: why do you think they mentioned it, if it's such a useless piece of non-information? It's clearly a notable fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries2─╢ 12:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Finding a reference is not sufficient for including a piece of text in an article. It is a requirement, but not sufficient, if that text is otherwise not fit for the article. The decade is "put into context" perfectly well by just saying that it runs from 2010 to 2019; that gives the readers full and concise information of when that decade is. – Frankly, I was trying to reduce edit wars by suggesting that we remove that useless sentence. You know quite well that that sentence does cause harm in the form of edit wars. You can see it on this talk page above. You can also see that others, not just me, have suggested that that sentence be simply removed. However, since you have decided to include the sentence, no matter what, I don't see how any consensus could be reached. --Jmk (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you forgot to answer my question, "Why do you think so many reliable sources cover the fact if it's such a useless piece of non-information?" Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not believe that you are seriously asking that question. Of course newspapers and such can give various epithets to decades (or any other things), but that does not mean that every such epithet is a tremendously important piece of information that must be included in Wikipedia. I hope you understand that just the fact that you find a citation for X, does not mean that X must be included in Wikipedia. – Still, I want to point out that my goal here was to reduce conflicts. Personally, I am not disturbed by the sentence (second decade of 21st century), but I was hoping that by removing it (since it clearly is not necessary), we would get rid of the continuous conflicts that you see on this talk page (and the article history). Alas, that hope was in vain. You, TreasuryTag, have turned even this attempt into a fight, by insisting that the sentence must be included. I do not know what your reasons are. I just hope they are sincere. --Jmk (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Second decade: random section break

< Sorry, I've not turned anything into a fight, it's called discussion... ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were willing to discuss the relative merits of including or not including that piece of text, that would be discussion. I have not seen such willingness from your part. You just demand inclusion and that's it. Why are you so insistent? And why do you call that text "harmless", while you can easily see from the talk page what harm it causes? I am baffled. --Jmk (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't delete text because it causes "harm" (though in this case, the "harm" is discussion). We have articles on all sorts of topics which cause controversy every day, but as an encyclopedia we don't opt for a quiet life!
I'm not continuing this discussion since you are clearly not interested in constructive debate, but only in moaning about my attitude. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 15:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the accusation. In fact, I am interested in constructive debate, and have repeatedly stated reasons why that piece of text is unnecessary. Others have stated why they think it is harmful (not because it causes discussion, but because they think it is false). However, it is clear by now that no consensus is reached this way. Hopefully others will voice in their opinions. Until there is a consensus, I do not see why it should be your way that rules. --Jmk (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you the page should be "your way" until there's a consensus, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No. And since you are more insistent (seeing how many times you have returned that piece of text), it will probably be your way. --Jmk (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's got to be one way or the other, there are only two options. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously. I am refraining from editing that part for now. We'll just have to wait if other editors have something to say. --Jmk (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Splendid—glad we got that sorted out. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 16:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to add my opinion; if I'm understanding the discussion thus far, it seems to be between the positions that on one side, Wikipedia is not censored to omit controversial mentions; while on the other side, content should not be included just for the sake of inclusion, but because it adds to the readers understanding of the subject in a clear and concise way without adding extraneous data. Is this a fair assessment?
Assuming that was an accurate statement of the positions, I do (now) support having the mention in the article. I realize that this is a change from my earlier position, so will clarify my reasons. While I agree that it's not the second full decade of the 21st century, more than enough reliable sources have been found that claim it to be the second decade that we should just retain the mention at this point - the support of that claim is overwhelming. However, if a reliable source can be found that demonstrates why it is not the second full decade (which should be possible, just needs to be documented), then that material should be worked into the body of the article, and discussed here if the position is strong enough to be added to the lead as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Very nicely put, I think we have a workable balance of consensus for immediate purposes; hopefully others will chime in at some point soon! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, you do provide a bunch of sources from the general media that claim the 2010s are the second decade of the 21st century in one form or another. However, there are plenty of scientific sources that directly contradict those sources when specifically asked the question "When did the 21st century begin?" Here are some from the US Naval Observatory http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/millennium.php and NASA http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980902d.html http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010105.html . We can then go to tertiary sources including tons of articles within wikipedia itself which should be backed by primary or secondary sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century#cite_note-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s . All of these sources define the 21st century as starting on 2001/1/1 running up to 2100/1/1. Using routine calculation that means the 1st decade of the 21st century started on 2001/1/1 running up to 2011/1/1. Similarly, the 2nd decade of the 21st century started on 2011/1/1 running up to 2021/1/1, which is not the same as the definition of the 2010s in this article and elsewhere. You (and your sources) are confusing ordinal naming of centuries + decades with the typical way decades are named and defined.

If you insist on keeping something along the lines of this claim here, then let's at least alter it to be correct like the 2000s_(decade) article and say something along the lines of the "the 2nd decade of the 21st century began in the 2010s," which skirts this issue. I don't believe that every decade article should be host to a discussion over the confusion between the naming of decades (e.g. - the 1890s) vs. ordinal naming of millennia, centuries and decades (e.g. - 2nd millennium, 20th century, 2nd decade of 21st century, etc.). That is where this discussion is going to end up if you insist on keeping this claim as it is currently written. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, articles within Wikipedia are not reliable sources. As for your other sources, please use them in the article, perhaps to say, "However, other sources say X," but don't delete the content I've found – the mainstream media's opinion is important as well, as I'm sure you'll agree. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 20:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't delete your sources, I just reworded the claim to try to make it accurate and to skirt this issue. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry, my mistake. However, we don't skirt issues. I would suggest that you put a paraggraph in somewhere, "However, other sources have said X." ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 20:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Do we really want to clutter this article with something along the lines of "Some claim that the 2010s are the second decade of the 21st century *bunch of refs* even though the 2nd decade of the the 21st century starts on Jan 1, 2011 and runs through Dec 31, 2020. *bunch of refs*"? 71.179.4.216 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It is possible to do that, but it would certainly give undue weight to a silly naming issue. Surely there are much more interesting things to tell about a decade (such as, world trends in politics, economy, culture and whatnot). --Jmk (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE, as far as I'm aware, applies only to varying opinions on one topic (as in, if an article gave too much coverage of the "global warming is a lie" viewpoint and not enough to "global warming is real"), not to one particular issue, as here. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You have probably just accidentally missed these sentences from WP:UNDUE: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Here the subject is a particular decade (2010s), and the significant aspects are what happened during that decade (not some silly naming details). --Jmk (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
So I did; apologies! ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad I could help you understand WP:UNDUE better. Now that we have that out of the way, what do you think about the issue? Do you not think that perhaps the article intro might now be giving way too much weight to a particular naming issue? Perhaps, even, undue weight? --Jmk (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly why I've been arguing for removing this whole claim. It is technically inaccurate and brings a whole bunch of controversy / discussion explaining why if you leave it in. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not technically inaccurate, it is verifiably true. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You are confusing verifiability with truth -- the two are not the same. I have produced verifiable sources from experts on this matter directly addressing the question we are discussing that completely contradict your sources. As such, I've reworked the first two sentences to include these sources as well, even though I find this whole exercise ridiculous. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've rebalanced what you wrote slightly... how do you think it looks now? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't think this decade article, nor all the others, should be host to discussion on the difference between ordinal naming and the typical naming of decades.71.179.4.216 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to state again that I think the claim that the 2010s is the 2nd decade of the 21st century adds virtually nothing to understanding, is technically inaccurate and should be removed. At best, it is needlessly redundant with the stated definition of the 2010s as being 2010-2019. At worst, it is in conflict with ordinal counting and the definition of the 21st century as being 2001-2100. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to state it again, I understood the first time. I see nothing wrong with the way that the article currently stands. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of your position, I was concisely restating my opinion for anyone else that might be interested in this subject without needing to burrow through our whole back and forth. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Some sources say that the 21st century began in 2001

The current wording states "Some sources say that the 21st century began in 2001". If only "some" state this, it implies that most sources state otherwise; however, from what I've viewed so far, there are several that state the decades began in 2000 and 2010, but that's not the same. Unless I overlooked them, no sources are attached state the century began anytime other than 2001. Even the guideline at WP:RY supports that the century began in 2001. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "Some sources say" is a very unbalanced wording here. I wonder what could have lead to such wording. In fact, I am baffled. --Jmk (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Needless to say, I agree and have changed back the wording. We have at least 3 editors and a guidance article saying the "Some say that the 21st century began in 2001" should not be in this article. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is not ideal. However, you cannot say, "Even though the decade started in..., some sources say otherwise," because that is implying that reliable sources are wrong, which is original research. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A decade is a period of 10 years any ten years can be a decade 2004-2013, 2009-2018. 2010s is the decade from 2010 to 2019, people usually use this decade. But we dont have year zero, so if you go from 10 to 10 years until you get into 2010, the 2010 decade would be 2001-2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.142.4 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant to the previous discussion, although loosely related to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: decade issue

How should the article denote the various disagreements as to what constitutes the second decade of the 21st century? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from previously involved TreasuryTag

  • Given that there are numerous reliable sources on each side of this dispute, they should be treated with equal weight, and neutral wording should be added to the article to describe the disagreement. The proposed wording of, "Even though the 21st century began in 2001, many state that it began in 2000...." implies that the 10-12 reliable sources stating that position are wrong; this is POV and original research. Neutral wording is the only way forward. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 22:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Response to IP-71....

Comments from previously involved 71.179.4.216 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC) / Jschultz410 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a huge number of highly authoritative sources that directly contradict the claim that the 21st century started in (Jan 1) 2000. As but one example, we can look to Wikipedia:RY, which offers article guidance on almost exactly this point:

"4. Decade (e.g., the 2000s decade). Bear in mind that, in the Gregorian calendar, the first year of a CE/AD millennium or century always ends with a "1", because there was no year zero. However, the first year of a decade always ends with a "0", because decades are labelled nominally, in order to demarcate sets of similarly named years. (The names of years, themselves, are natural numbers that, relative to the transition between the calendar eras, reflect both an ordinal position and a cardinal length of time.)" 71.179.4.216 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to TreasuryTag:

  • I retract my accusation of synthesis by TreasuryTag and agree that you are doing a routine calculation based off of what your sources are saying (edited as such).
  • However, I do think that your particular version of the sentence makes an overly strong claim about your sources. If it survives, it should probably be weakened to say "... and some sources imply that it began in 2000" as none of your sources (at least that I saw) makes your claim directly nor are they directly countering the claim that the 21st century began in 2001. In vivid contrast, the expert articles that claim the 21st century started in 2001 directly address the question of when the 21st century began and directly counter the claim that it began in 2000. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I do think that TreasuryTag has a point that there is confusion over the difference between ordinal and nominal naming of decades and that confusion should be discussed somewhere (e.g. - Year Zero article). I just don't think the lead line of an article on the 2010s, or any other particular decade, is the proper place to go into what is a general discussion / confusion about how decades are named and defined. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Gregorian Calendar there is no year 0 AD. The definition of the 1st century is years 1-100. By routine calculation, and supported by plenty of highly authoritative sources, the definition of the 21st century is therefore 2001-2100. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Barek:

  • I do think it accurate to say that the 2010s are the second decade of the 2000s (century or millennium). I don't think it accurate to say the 2010s are the 2nd decade of the 21st century based on their definitions + routine calculation. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I find your argument about the starting of decades and the centuries to which they belong logically convincing. I still think if we are going to address this issue, then some note needs to be there pointing out that the century/millennium actually starts on a different date, otherwise, you will constantly have people claiming that the article is logically incorrect and changing it. Again, preferably, this whole issue would be addressed generally somewhere else rather than squeezed into the lead lines of this one article. Also, it would really be great if we found a strong, authoritative source that confirmed your understanding of the relation between named decades and the centuries to which they belong even though their dates don't perfectly overlap. Jschultz410 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from previously involved Barek

I agree that both wordings that have been proposed are misleading. The problem is that both attempt to relate the two sets of facts together, which simply cannot be done without spelling out more detail than what really belongs in the lead - and possibly more than even belongs in this article. The two sets of facts are:

  • It is accurate (per all cited sources as well as WP:RY) to state that the 21st century began in 2001.
  • It is also accurate (per all cited sources as well as WP:RY) to state that the 2010s is the second decade.

There is no conflict here. This odd situation is supported and documented at WP:RY, which spells out the reasons for the difference:

"Bear in mind that, in the Gregorian calendar, the first year of a CE/AD millennium or century always ends with a "1", because there was no year zero. However, the first year of a decade always ends with a "0", because decades are labelled nominally, in order to demarcate sets of similarly named years. (The names of years, themselves, are natural numbers that, relative to the transition between the calendar eras, reflect both an ordinal position and a cardinal length of time.)"

In other words, the centuries and millenniums are based on the Gregorian calendar, while the 2010s are based on the text descriptor "2010s" (ie: "201x", or "2010-2019").

The problem occurs when anyone makes the assumption that the fist decade of the century started at the same time as the century - then you run into the logical roadblock that both statements cannot be true. None of the sources state that they both start at the same time. No source even clarifies if the 2010s is the second full decade of the century or not. The simplest way to rationalize this seeming conflict is to realize that the first decade of the century was not fully within the century, it started a year earlier. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from previously uninvolved [R0nin Two]

I find it somewhat bizarre that this article cites and discusses events from the past decade. Certainly it's too early to say much about what the events of this decade (however you determine when the decade began), but does that justify bringing in events that occurred in the previous one?

I also find some of the language to be overly politically correct-- such as the discussion of terrorists, which seems to try to imply that the "terrorist" label is not widely believed to be appropriate. This seems ludicrous to me; surely it's disingenuous to imply that it's a racist west that considers "groups such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas" to be terrorists. Who outside of these groups (and those sympathetic to them) denies that they are terrorists? I'm pretty sure that people who apply the tactics of terror (suicide bombs et al) are terrorist by definition, and attempts to deny this are politically motivated-- not the other way around.

Further discussion

Concerning 71.179.4.216's wish that the ordinal/nominal naming issue should be discussed somewhere: It is already very nicely explained in Decade, where the wording has been (after discussion) carefully worked to give a concise and balanced view. I agree that individual decade articles (such as 2010s) are not a proper place for it. (Besides, citing ten individual usage examples in an attempt to prove common usage is bordering on WP:SYN.) --Jmk (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm going to take another crack at reworking the second sentence to try to address the issues presented here. It's really bad as currently written as there is no real debate about when the 21st century officially began. Jschultz410 (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "The 2010s are considered the 2nd decade of the 21st century and 3rd millennium, [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] even though both the 21st century and 3rd millennium technically began in 2001. [16]" I think this fairly and correctly presents both sides of the issue. I still think it needless to go into this level of detail in the lead sentences of any / all particular decade articles and we shouldn't do it here. What do you guys think? Jschultz410 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems quite established that this level of detail does not belong to the intro. As I understand, that is the opinion of myself, 71.179.4.216, Barek and Jschultz410. (I don't think it is interesting enough to be included anywhere in a particular decade article, but later is better than in the intro.) --Jmk (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I would say that this information doesn't belong in the intro at all. This really is a solution without a problem. "The 2010s are considered the second decade of the 21st century and 3rd millennium" is all that matters. I don't how this is covered in decade, but the information is hands down not necessary. Also, I don't see how following up information with, "although technically" is encyclopedic. This is definitely not the place for this. SwarmTalk 08:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've just looked at this, naturally near-empty, 2010s article. I also just looked at 1980s. That one simply says "It was the ninth decade of the 20th century." No ifs/buts, not prevaricating, no worrying that the ninth decade really was 1981-1990. This new 2010s article is the latest in the same series, and has no need at all for any irrelevant discussion about the century, even less the millennium (there is no "99th decade of the 2nd millennium" in 1980s). There is plenty of coverage of alternative definitions of time periods in other articles. Please let us remove all that from 2010s, and remove the OR about pronunciations (twenty-teens???). Sussexonian (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, we could just simply state that 2010s is the decade from 2010 to 2019. No further confusion needed; we'll tell the reader which time period this article is about, and that's it. How does that sound to you? --Jmk (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above, there seems to be clear consensus that those naming details should not be in the intro. I am thus moving them later in the article. If somebody then deletes them altogether, I don't mind (though some people might). --Jmk (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Political events

Sorry, but this section looks like pure WP:RECENTISM to me. California's same-sex marriage issues, and even the health care matters of the US as a whole, are not very "international" concerns. For whatever it's worth, I'm an American who supports both same-sex marriage and health care reform. But seriously, the decade is a whole three months old. It's much too soon to know what the most prominent political events of the decade will even be, let alone to suggest that they'll mostly be US domestic concerns. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We cannot predict what the most significant political events would be as a whole at the end of the current decade. BUT, we can establish a consensus on which were the most significant political events world wide up until the present (even though it's only three months so far). Please share your knowledge and help us expand this section. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer to include the US health care reform, because I like to see it as the long-awaited filling of a gaping international gap: Now all industrialized nations will have some sane (or, at least, semi-sane) health care provision. But that's me, and I am, quite frankly, biased. Somebody else--even someone of the same political persuasion--might just as well see the glass as half-empty: Now the US has caught up with international practices which long predated the 2010s. In fact, perhaps this "pessimist's" stance is just my own position, minus the emotional excitement. But, no matter how full or how empty the glass may be, the amount of time that has passed, as of now, in this decade is just a drop in the bucket. I'd rather see no "political events" section than a premature section which contains stuff just because it can. But, of course, if I think of something that appears to warrant mention, I'd be happy to direct that thought toward expanding (or otherwise benefiting) the article or any of its sections. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, I would add that an occurrence needn't be tagged as a "political event" in order to be understood as such. Technically speaking, anything that affects or derives from a polis is, by definition, political. Thus, for example, the 2010 Haiti earthquake was a "political event" from the very moment it struck Port-au-Prince. I don't mean to "play semantics", so to speak, but only to suggest that "political events" might not be as vital a designation as it seems at first glance. Anyway, I'm not going to remove the section without consensus, and again, I'll be glad to share ideas for improving it--although I can't predict how soon these ideas will pop up. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Aaaaanywayyyy: I would suggest removing the entry about the same-sex marriage trial in California, unless either (preferably both) of the following can be added to the entry: 1) a Wikilink, to an article specifically about this trial, which demonstrates at least implicit consensus that the topic is notable; or 2) an indication that some decision of at least national importance came of the trial. Right now, the article says that there was a trial. The reader, understandably, might say, "So what?" Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought?

Can we add Hannah Montana to the man-made disasters section? Just a thought =p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.41.18 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Narrow down in the future

What I noticed is that we are only two years into this decade and already this article is excessively detailed with random events from almost every month in the past two years. I'm just letting you guys know that as the years go by we will have to slim down this article and fit in only the most significant events, otherwise the article will get too long. But I guess right now it can be tolerated. Good luck :) - Cadiomals (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Assassinations

It would probably be a good idea to only put items under this heading which are verified by a citation that unambiguously shows that word in a reliable source. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Arab spring

In the article over the Arab spring I think it would be fair to include Yemen, Bahrein and Syria they have or have had considerable political turmoil. And within the Libyan uprising we should conclude the no-fly zone and the NATO intervention. It's not purely a civil war now, foreign players are involved militarily. I don't know if it is enough to call it an international war though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.61.76 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Foldit

Just curious if the following bit of information would be more applicable under science or video games:

In 2011 players of the video game Foldit figured out the structure of the protein M-PMV retroviral protease, which had stumped scientists for more than a decade. This discovery is considered the first time a long-standing scientific problem was solved through virtual crowd-sourcing.[1]

Thanks for any opinions on it! --MarcZimmer (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Simplification

I think we show simplify articles about decades and centuries more simple bullet points, the reader can get the more detailed information if they click on the article, I think its unnecessary to give the reader 3-4 lines of information on for e.g. a war in this article, there's simply too much to point out to be explaining it all in detail.

A more clean article of the 2010s, other decades, centuries, exc. would be:

== Wars == === International Wars === * [[War on Terrorism]] * [[War in Afghanistan]] * [[War in Iraq]] * [[Arab-Israeli Conflict]] === Civil Wars & Guerilla conflicts === * [[2011 Libyan Civil War]] * [[Mexican Drug War]] * [[War in Northwest Pakistan]] * [[Sa'dah Insurgency]] * [[War in Somalia]] * [[Conflict in Niger Delta]] * [[Civil War in Chad]] * [[Insurgency in Maghreb]] * [[Colombian Armed Conflct]]

and so forth, so thats my opinion, thanks for reading. Signed --deanmullen09 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Architecture

Three Gorges Dam

Is the Three Gorges Dam in China completed or not? Here it says it will be fully operational in 2011 but there's one problem: 2011 is at its end, so i want to know or this already was, or it has to be another year or should be undetermined.

Recession times

I don't think it can be said that the great recession 'officially' ended in mid-2009. Many countries were still reporting negative growth at the first quarter of 2010, and countries such as Greece, Ireland,Iceland, Spain, Romania and Venezuela as well as others will still negative then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.85.32 (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Fashion? Really?

It is obviously too soon to objectively view fashion trends of the decade. I say delete that section. It's only filled with opinion, original research, and probably is tainted with observed "regional" trends of the original poster(s). Look at the state of fashion in the 1990s for example; under this logic it would be assumed that the grunge fashion would have lasted throughout the decade. It didn't though. Mainstream fashion became more preppy later on in the decade, and that couldn't have been predicted in 1992 when grunge was at its height. I know that people will point to other sections such as the music and video games and such, but that need not apply to this argument. Musical trends and video games transition at a faster pace and there is a clear distinction between the music of the 2000s decade and the 2010s already, but fashion hasn't changed all that much from the late-2000s. The only noticeable trend that I've seen is that more people are wearing those horrid Rick Santorum-style sweaters. Ick. =p (Tigerghost (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Living article

Since I am here I'd also like to ask a question. Are pages like these more-or-less a living article? They change and get edited so often that there isn't a clear direction to them. Is the format supposed to be chaotic until 2020 when we can see the entire decade in retrospect and then re-write/clarify/summarize/clean/filter out the "junk" in it? (Tigerghost (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

I agree with that assessment. The 2000s article was pretty messy until 2010. I say just leave the article be right now. In 2020 we can focus on cleaning it up, and thats a long way off. Cadiomals (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Favoritism

I worked extensively on the music and video game sections in the past few months and I guess I just wanted to hear what people's thoughts are on the avoiding favoritism policies I've enacted there. I figured that here in the 2010s page, the issue should summarize the long-term, observed trends. If someone wanted more in-depth detail on artists and songs, then there are other articles that are linked to in the 'See also' bars above the section's paragraphs. Before, the sections were messy and more-or-less a list of people's favorite groups and songs [very, very subjective, and not objective]. I feel like I broke my own rule by using Call of Duty's sale figures in the video game section. It is notable, but I'm not sure how to react to this. Can it be just an exception? I'd hate to start a precedent that would lead to more people just posting what their own personal favorites are on these sections. How can I remove Call of Duty, but not take away the fact that its sale figures were on par with film industry figures? How can I make it a neutral statement? I also mentioned the Sims series in the same section and although I cleaned it up a bit, I feel like some favoritism is unavoidable especially when one talks about video games. I am proud of the music section though, and how it is neat and compact. I would like other editors input on how to combat favoritism and their rules of thumb on the issue. (Tigerghost (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC))

I have a problem with introducing a "Popular figures" section to this article. My concerns are similar to why I like avoiding favoritism in that they will never fully be completed lists and the page may soon being filled with all this, what I refer to as, junk or completely trivial information where this particular page should merely summarize the 2010s. This will become a very, very BIG article if the list is to remain for 8 more years. What are your thoughts? Most of this material can be more efficient on the "decade-specific" articles such as 2010s in video gaming, 2010s in film, 2010s in music, ect... (Tigerghost (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC))

2011 Queensland Floods

Why is there no mention of the 2010-2011 Australian floods? It caused $30bn worth of damage and hit 4 states. Pretty significant if you ask me, and more important than the Brazilian floods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.30.71 (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Less confusion? Unnecessary countdown?

74.101.188.105 has divided the introduction sentences and added words to reduce confusion. But they seem to make the reading more long-winded. None of the other articles about the current time introduce in this long-winded manner. And besides, how is that less confusing?

And at the beginning of 2013, a countdown was added saying "Currently, X years and XXX days of the decade have passed" but Fernwood1990 removed it saying it was "unnecessary". Why? 81.156.92.25 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Abenomics

I believe Abenomics should probably be mentioned in the economy section, but someone with a bit more know-how should talk put in an entry. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody add women's sport events in the sports section?

There is not a single women's sport event listed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.26.130 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You are someone. No-one's stopping you. Britmax (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Decade photo?

Do you think it would be a good idea to create a decade illustration for the 2010s like we have for other decades? Obviously we can't create a full one yet, but perhaps we can starting to one - so for the present we would have an illustration about same the size of the others, but except for one photo of, say, the Arab Spring, it would be mostly blank. As times goes on the photo would be added to or revised as past events are reassesed. theBOBbobato (talk)

That doesn't make sense at all. How can we possibly create an adequate montage when we're only three years into the decade. The 2000s article didn't have a photo montage until 2010, because the end of the decade is the only time we can look back objectively and see which events were the most important and belong in the montage. Cadiomals (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bud in so late, but that's actually how I feel about this article. I guess the article could be changed though, while a decade photo might not be able to be changed as quickly. Still, is it wise to "conclusively" write about the 2010s when we're only halfway in? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding indiscriminate lists and information

Please consult WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:DISCRIMINATE in deciding what sort of information is appropriate to add to this article. Ideally this decade article should only contain the most important and impactful people, technology and events of the decade. Once the 2020s come of course we will be able to get a clear view of what ended being the most important events. As of now, all users should please avoid the indiscriminate addition of random information. Cadiomals (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I try to avoid favoritism and I think that it should be a rule for these kinds of articles (similar to my previous post on this Talk page regarding favoritism). Example: I think that Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, ect... could be more relevant in the 2010s in music article, while this page specifically should just mention the overall trend of electropop music, you know? A while ago, I managed to rewrite the television/film, music, and video gaming sections of the page. I didn't rewrite any others because I'm a little less knowledgeable in those topics. Thoughts on making a consensus on avoiding favoritism in the decade pages? (Tigerghost (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC))

Charlie Hebdo shooting

Does it deserve a mention under notable 'Terrorist attacks'? Personally I believe the incident attracted enough political fallout and global media coverage (not to mention the 'Je Suis Charlie' movmement) to warrant a place. --Half past formerly SUFCboy 20:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This probably should be centralized, but there appears to be consensus that it shouldn't be listed in 2015, and, although it's not the case, one would expect 2010s to have more restrictions than 2015. (I say "expect", because entries which are only in 2014 in sports, not 2014, are included here, so the same might be true of terrorism.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It triggered major media and public attention and for Europe and the western world it was the heaviest catastrophe of this year so far. I really don't see how leaving it out would make any sense (for the year or the decade) as of now. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And btw, as you can see by the length of the CH-attacks article and the number of translations, this probably is in the top class of all terrorist attack articles at Wiki, by relevancy. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Cybersecurity and Hacking Incidents

I believe that "traditional" hacking of banks and merchants fit here better than the more recent hacking of government agencies; except for WikiLeaks (which was actually leaked, not "hacked"), the commercial and "traditional" criminal attacks have greater significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on 2010s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on 2010s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Prominent political events

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Decades, the UK and Europe, and trains before creating or restoring sub-sub-sub-sub-sub headings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Does this new section have any sort of order to it, or is it a bit of a "mish-mash"? I'm not sure and just wanted to check first. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 07:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe this section is becoming overwhelmingly long and messy. Only prominently important trends should be added, with obligatory citations to at least confirm their inclusion. So, for starters, yes, it should all be set in a specific order and not look all "mish-mash". ProjectHorizons (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll leave a hidden comment in the section then to require at least an attempt at talkpage discussion before adding new links. I've been trying to keep it in an alphabetical list with non-eggy links to articles. Some of the links were rather oddly piped from what I know of other lists and general Wiki guides.
If you can continue to help out with this section (since I don't keep up much with the tech feeds and trends) that would be amazing, and/or if you can grab some other editors as well to look over and keep an eye out. At any rate, thanks for responding ProjectHorizons. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2010s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Gravitational waves

The discovery of gravitational waves by LIGO researchers should be here, somewhere; although I don't know if it should be 2015 or 2016. The facility discovered the event in 2015, but researchers didn't notice it until 2016. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Photo montage

Someone just added a photo montage at the top of the page to recap the decade. Isn't it way too early to add this? ProjectHorizons (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is too early. It should be removed and generally at the end of the decade editors should consult with each other when determining what is notable to make sure it isn't too focused on any one person's interpretation of the decade. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010s. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Boring

Oh, great and merciful dictators of Wikipedia... this article has become so boring now. It was once fun to add, edit, and read; but it lacks narrative, flow, and perspective. You can grill the fat out of meat, but what's left is usually burnt and tasteless. Good job, for once again ruining another Wikipedia article. I'm sure it was worth it (*sarcasm) (Tigerghost (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC))

The gallery looks just plain messy to me and with users adding more and more world leaders who, more or less, aren't actually notable go by unnoticed. Should we remodel it in some way? I was thinking of adding only world leaders with international influence (so Barack Obama and Xi Jinping) and leaders who have a really significant place in a country's history. For example, Bashar al-Assad because of the destruction of his own country and Tsai Ing-wen because she became the first female President of Taiwan. I'd really like to have some input from other users. ProjectHorizons (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't Putin's name be in bold? While his position changed during the decade, the only requirement for being in bold is that he has "stayed in power", which he has. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.133.102 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010s. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2010s. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dyn cyber attack

Under the cyber part of this article, you need to add the fact that sites like Twitter, Reddit and Netflix were shut down in a major DDoS attack today, in one of the biggest DDoS attacks in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Jan Cola (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump image

I meant to add an edit summary that I thought the prior image was superior, but my smartphone interface was refusing to enter words of more than 1 letter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Messi–Ronaldo rivalry

@Feroang: Why is this possibly one of the more notable "events", even in association football, in the decade? I don't see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps one sentence, with a {{importance}} tag, would be appropriate, but I do not see evidence of importance or accuracy in the underlying article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
becase we have lines about a team/person that won 1 nba season or 1 superbowl, and those messi-ronaldo get elected by the official body (fifa) as the best player of the world of the year on 6 of those 7 year of the decade, is like win oscar to best actor 5 consecutive year, also most popular sport and most popular player that can fill a stadium in "every" corner of the world. Writing from cellphone...Feroang (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Much of the article isn't supported by reliable sources, and that statement isn't in the article, although it might be supported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
i really did put references the same that in other wikipedia articles, that is why my edition have so many letters.Feroang (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit late coming to this, but I see it as analogous to Lebron James in the NBA in the first half of the decade, the San Francisco Giants in the MLB, or the LA Kings and Chicago Blackhawks in the NHL. Only, instead of one country's national league, we're talking about the entire world (and the most popular sport in the world to boot). -- Irn (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider those appropriate in decade articles, either. It also isn't really allocable to the decade. The (alleged) rivalry seems to be about 2005 to present, so is not really associated with the 2010s. Is it mentioned in any of the Association Football timeline articles? If so, and it is here, it should be considerably smaller. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
If you reinsert one sentence, with an {{importance-inline}} tag, I'd be willing to let it go. As I don't consider it significant, I would be unable to select the appropriate sentence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
All of the examples I gave are already in that same list. Are you suggesting they be removed? -- Irn (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

frontloaded with horrible things

the beginning of the article has all the bad things like wars and coups and things, and you have to get past the half way mark to find nice things :( 143.167.69.227 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Population Ageing

"The consequences of an aging society were felt hardest in Europe, Russia and Japan, which were the first to experience substantial population decline."

This sentence is weird and misleading, given that Russia has experienced massive population decline for the two decades prior, reversing to positive growth in 2010s. 137.222.114.246 (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I just read the article cited, and it had some wild, completely wrong information of unidentifiable origin. I'm removing it. 2001:630:E4:4220:9DBD:226E:17A3:5366 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 2010s. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010s. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010s. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Internet

This decade deserve a subseccion title "Internet", maybe inside the seccion culture.Feroang (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on 2010s. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Decade Collage

Since the decade is almost over, we might as well construct a collage for the decade. Paramount Pctures (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The decade is not really almost over, there is still 2 and half years tell the new one, anything can happen in that time. In fact The Fall Of The Berlin Wall which is considered to be one of the most importent events of the 80s happened in the last 2 months of that decade. I think we could discuss some things that we could put in the collage, but I don't think we need to create one till January 2020.

Some importent events so far could be: The Fight Against Isis, North Korea Nuclear Program, Brexit, Gay Marraige Legalized in USA, Independence Of South Sudan, Haiti Earthquake, Climate Change (Global Warming, this is the most debatable I think.), Mobile Devices (Smartphones, Tablets, Labtops.). Khscarymovie4 (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I wish there was an objective way to decide what should go into that collage, e.g. the greatest number of mentions in major news sources (BBC, CNN, etc.), or the greatest number of Internet search engine queries. At the end of each year, Google Trends publishes a list of the most popular search terms of that year, some of them split into categories (People, Events, Global News, Elections, etc.). At any rate, I'm inclined to agree on the inclusion of portable smart devices, Brexit and ISIS/Syrian Civil War/the Arab Spring, perhaps also the impressive wave of same-sex marriage victories in 20+ countries, including most Western countries and notably the US. For now, it's difficult to assess the magnitude of the North Korean escalation because it's still ongoing. 77.126.11.183 (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Environmentalism

Someone recently decimated (I'm attempting to find a neutral word) the "Environmentalism" section, leaving a single unsourced statement. I don't think the deleted sentence was adequately sourced, although any comment on public opinion on or "reduction" of GMOs should mention GMO conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot that can be added to that section, the GMO's like you mentioned, but also concern over peak oil, rising popularity of renewable energies and awareness of climate change. I'll see if I can get to it soon. RiverCastle (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010s/Archive_1&oldid=1144080230"