Talk:Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Years (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Time (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment[edit]

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara 11:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Someone please clarify how the year 0 (in "astrononomical" calculation) would belong to the first century BC!

old See also[edit]

I excised this, as User:LimoWreck points out, other units of time shouldn't show up on the see also. I don't see the reason behind it though. It seems like a perfectly good reason to put it into the see also section 132.205.45.148 02:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe navigation templates might be a good idea? --Kjoonlee 05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Redo 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[edit]

I came across this and was bold. Please review the edit. There's not a whole bunch of new information, just a bit more nicely presented (hopefully). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCCRogers (talkcontribs) 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"-cento"[edit]

It might be useful if we mention under 'non-ordinal naming' that Italians (and we too) for art-historical purposes use the century naming convention Quatrocento, Cinquecento etc. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavians and the first 99[edit]

I'm glad this answers why sometimes Scandinavians say "century" when they really mean "hundred" because they don't have the ordinal distinction that "century" has in English. But then this needs to say they call what the first 99 years of the Gregorian calander. Or do they not group those years into something?76.120.66.57 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dumb question removed. Sorry.Breadbelly (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavians also use the equivalent of century ('århundrade') in the same way as in English, however using a "hundreds" suffix is much more common by convention. The first century is called the zero hundreds, although in my experience that expression is seldom used and instead replaced by other equivalent expressions (like for example "the first century"). I have been taught that English usage is ambiguous and can be different in different regions (e.g. the 19th century could mean both 1900-1999 and 1800-1899 depending on country), so you had to check or remember the right definition in each case which is sometimes difficult and inconvenient. Not sure if that is true though. 84.219.168.196 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, English usage is ambiguous as to whether the 19th century is 1801 to 1900 (based on church calendars that have no year 0) or 1800-1899 (based on astronomical calendars which do) but everyone agrees that e.g. 1950 is was in the 20th century. Probably more people would follow the second convention - for example we had millennium / 21st century celebrations at 1.1.2000 rather than 1.1.2001 but the first convention is seen as more "correct" - I think because English-speaking culture is not exactly dominated by the scientifically inclined :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.234.47 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


The Scandinavian section makes assertions regarding "another system often used based on the hundreds part of the year", followed by examples in all but one language claimed to include such a system. While Icelandic is said to include this phenomenon as well, examples from it are conspicuously missing, and as a native Icelandic speaker I'm not aware of anything in our language resembling this. We do have the word árhundruð, which means 100 years and is synonymous with öld, which is a slightly more ambiguous term, in that it can mean both a century or an age of unspecified duration (so for example the Bronze Age is called Bronsöldin, but aldarafmæli which consists of öld and afmæli for birthday, means 100-year birthday). I fear I may be getting overly specific here, bottom line: I suggest Icelandic be left out of the languages mentioned, unless someone can find a source justifying its inclusion. Juliusthor (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Abbreviation[edit]

I tried to add the abbreviation "c." for "century" to the article, but a bot immediately revereded the edit. A bug notification had no effect. Can perhaps an admin make the modification? -- 95.208.230.48 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Major Edit?[edit]

Because of cross-issues I was not fully aware of, I made something that may amount to a major edit, and so should have put a discussion section here. Please leave the article as is through the Baha'i Ridvan (sp?) celebration (Say, around May 8 I will have time for this specific issue), as that is my natural religion.Julzes (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a major edit. It's just misleading, where it isn't wrong. Something related to Swedish language might remain, but your "clarification" is not a clarification, but a restatement in more obscure, and not more precise, terms. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I will check this later. You know, some promises are more important than others.Julzes (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Specific centuries[edit]

20th century and 21st century have been added to the "See also" section; I'm not sure that's a good idea. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

List of centuries covers those just fine, I think. — Reatlas (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar section.[edit]

The section which makes assertions about the numbering of centuries in the Gregorian Calendar is incorrect. There are no numbered centuries in the Gregorian Calendar as it was devised, the year is the longest numbered period. Numbering the centuries is external to the calendar. The Gregorian Calendar started from 15 October 1582, there are no dates prior to this in the Calendar, for that you would need to project a proleptic Gregorian calendar.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)