Talk:Aughts

Simpsons reference

I notice that User:Blurryman removed the following text from Aughts#1900s, noting simply "remove unsourced comment":

In the post–World War II era through the 1990s, mentions of "nineteen-ought-six" or "aught-six" often distinctly connoted old-fashioned speech; for example, it was once used to add to the geriatric-humor effect in the dialogue of the Grampa Simpson character. The strength of the comedic effect diminished during the aughts of the next century, as the public grew used to questioning how to refer to an "ohs" or "aughts" decade.

That doesn't seem cromulent, so to speak :-D. It seems possible to find an acceptable citation, though I suppose this chunk of text is not that important. Still, User:Blurryman: is the problem simply with the lack of citation, or do you dispute the veracity of the claim? I'm also curious what User:Three-quarter-ten thinks, since that editor introduced the bulk of that text in oldid=612908662 of the "1900s (decade)" article in 2014 -- RobLa (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

1900 to 1909

This article was a redirect to "1900s (decade) for many years (between 2014 and 2017). Then in 2017, I copied and adapted the material from both the 1900s and 2000s articles. The article wasn't perfectly cited, but the changes seemed to have kept both the 1900s (decade) article and the 2000s article from being the target of edit wars, and consolidated the discussion about the naming of both decades. I'm not sure how this article turned into a stub, but it bums me out that I've had to spend so much time on this article rather than more important things. User:Danbloch, I hope that I've cited my change to your satisfaction. -- RobLa (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@RobLa: I'm afraid none of that changes my position. Aughts means 2000-2009 and does not mean 1900-1909. This is what the reliable sources say. Merriam-Webster and OED are both authoritative sources whose mission is to report the definitions of words. Of the two sources you provide for the 1900s definition, the Library of Congress Subject Headings don't use the term aughts at all, and the Slate article is an opinion piece and thus excluded as a reliable source. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Danbloch:, I'm afraid I disagree with you. In particular, this reference (which I'll quote) seems reliable enough for me:

Noah, Timothy (December 27, 2004). "Name That Decade". Slate.com. Archived from the original on 2011-08-19. Retrieved February 13, 2012.

To repeat what Timothy Noah wrote for Slate: " The most logical candidate is a term often used to describe the first decade of the 20th century: the "aughts." But despite heavy promotion from journalists and others, it's never caught on. (It must have struck most folks as too archaic—note my compulsion to surround it with quotation marks—or perhaps too precious.)"

Additionally, there's my Library of Congress reference (note the page numbers; they're important):

Congress, Library of (2006). Library of Congress Subject Headings. Library of Congress. pp. 4932, 4934.

Note the use in the above index of entries (on pages 4932 and 4934) for "Nineteen-aught-one" and "Nineteen-aught-five". If I had time, I'm sure I could find better references than these. However, I don't have time to discuss this (or get into an edit war over this, or to look up other sources implicitly cited by Timothy Noah). I'll come back to this in a few months, I guess. For now, I guess my work is done here. -- RobLa (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I found another reference (in audio form): <https://www.npr.org/2001/03/18/1120176/name-the-decade>. -- RobLa (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@RobLa: This doesn't address the problems I pointed out with those citations. The Slate article is from a column described as, "Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics". This is thus an opinion column and not a reliable source, again per WP:RSEDITORIAL, which explains that opinion pieces "are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy." The NPR example is similarly human interest. The Library of Congress subject headings do as you say mention the years "nineteen-aught-one" and "nineteen-aught-five", but they don't use the plural form anywhere and assuming that this is implied is WP:OR.

There are no contemporary sources that this term was used for the 1900s, and various reasons to believe that it wasn't. See, e.g., Google's ngram server or Cecil Adams's Straight Dope. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge with 2010s

I'm not quite sure why this article isn't simply a redirect to 2010s? 2A02:6B60:B9CA:0:87B6:DF10:255C:BEB1 (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Because it refers to the 2000s... 96.236.195.223 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The bigger-picture answer is that this article is about the term aughts (and noughties) and not the period of time itself. This made sense as it grew organically--originally no one knew what the decade was going to be called. See citations 6 through 10 in the article. It's possible that everyone knows what it's called now and the terminology is no longer of interest by itself (WP:NOTDICT), in which case the article could become a redirect. I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. Though I would argue that 2000s#Name for the decade would be a better redirect target than 2000s. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I changed my mind about 2000s#Name for the decade. Since the argument is that oughts/naughties is just a definition, a redirect should point the top of the article. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In England, in parts of England, I should say, we say “nowt” and “owt”, meaning nothing and something: “You don’t get owt for nowt.” or “D’you need owt fetchin’?” I would have thought these are the same words as nought and aught, and that the initial ‘n’ is a contracted ‘not’, as in ever and never, and one and none. Shakespeare uses both aught and ought, and the bible has ought, meaning anything or something, quite frequently. So I’m surprised that, as the article has it, aught mean zero, even in America.

I came to this page having come across, for the first time in my 74 years, the phrase “Since the aughts”, which Mr Google couldn’t help me with the meaning of. It’s context seems unlikely to mean “Since the 2000s” or “Since the 1900s” (meaning those decades) so I wonder whether it means “Since the year dot” or “For ages” or “For a long time”, and that Americans have mis-adopted aughts to mean the 2000s (perhaps because noughties, sounds the same as naughties, and Americans are sensitive to naughtiness). Anyway, this is a bud that has not been nipped; it now means what it means, I suppose. I hope this page is kept, or people like me will never know what “Since the aughts” is meant to mean. Nick Barnett (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Aughts for 1900-1909

I had heard of the “aughts” as a child, only in reference to the 1900s. I joked at the turn of the century (year 2000) that we could say “aught 3” to stand for ‘03, but I figured it sounded too old, like something my grandparents would say. I’ve never heard of it as a modern term before this article. The fact that any edits that have removed it as describing the 1900-1909 decade is beyond me. They used it much more frequently back then than anyone in the U.S. does today to describe the decade of this century. At least in my circle. I’m sad to see this bit of history being pushed out and denied. I wonder if the future will ever know the term was used back then. My generation definitely didn’t come up with it - and I hope this note is seen by others who think otherwise. Bibbis (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Naming Convention for the 00s and 10s decades

there seems to be a discussion about what to name the first decade and even the one after it for that matter

It seems to be the Noughties in the UK and Ireland as it was coined by the BBC during the Millennium and also aswell as Australia and New Zealand since their British Commonwealth of Nations whears its the Aughts in the USA and Canada as it is an old fashioned word used to describe the 1900s aswell and then it is simply just the Zeros in Mainland Europe too specifically Germanic and Scandinavian countries as I hear Dutch people call it that or Nul Jaren meaning Years Zero

So heres a list of names that have being given for debate on what to call them both ending in 'ties' and plain 's'

For the 00s

Noughties Naughties Oughties Aughties Zeroties

or

Noughts Naughts Oughts Aughts Zeros

For the 10s

Teenties Teenies Tenties Tennies Oneties

or

Teens Tens Ones 92.28.40.40 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)