Talk:List of decades
|WikiProject Years||(Rated List-class)|
|This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Portal talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents.|
BC to BCE
"BC" should be changed to "BCE" (Before Common Era); consistent with usage recommended by the American Historical Association. 20:51, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC) soverman
- Ironically you are being American-centric by saying that if an American institution recommends something, we should follow through. Kransky 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea, put it in Kransky 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Decade vs Decades
Decades: "This page refers to a period of ten years." - no it doesn't. Decades refers to periods of ten years. A decade is a unit of time equal to (a period of) ten years. We have now lost that information from wikipedia by replacing an article with a redirect. Ian Cairns 00:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) Count your digits. You start at one and proveed to ten just like with decades.10:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Some commentators suggest that this phenomenon will not continue into the 21st Century with its decades really? Wow...I would just love to know speculated this and the basis of their reasoning! Kransky 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Decades and counting them
The calendar starts at 1 AD, the year before it is 1 BC, there is no year Zero. Therefore the first decade AD was 1AD to 10AD and likewise the first decade BC was 1BC to 10BC. So. a decade ends in a zero, not a nine. All other decades, centuries and millenia follow the same format, ending in 0, 00 or 000. Unless you want to pick one and cut it to 9 years, 99 years or 999 years. But then it would not be a decade, century or millenia. Just get 1000 of anything and count them out in 10's, 100's or 1,000's. You start counting with a number ending in 1 and end with a number that ends in 0, 00 or 000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertjerl (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- It was nonsense the last time this was added, and it's still nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If it is nonsense then tell me which decade since Christ is the one with only 9 years. Also explain how you count out (oh, say pennies) 1000 of anything in 10's or 100's or 1000's with the count ending in a number with a 9 in the singles column? robertjerl 1-2-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, all of the decade entries I've seen here are incorrect. All centuries and decades begin in a year ending in one and end in a year ending in zero. There was no Year Zero, meaning that the first day of the first decade of the first century, AD, was January 1, 1.
The last day of the first decade was December 31, 10 and the last day of the first century was December 31, 100, not 12/31/99. Unless you're going to write off the first century as being only 99 years long, you have to begin and end decades and centuries on one and zero.
It's counter-intuitive, I know, but use your fingers and prove it for yourself.
- Please read WP:RY, or my longer reply at one of your duplicate posts at Talk:2000s (decade)#Wrong dates for this decade. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This article should be adjusted according to algorithm as follows: All years xx01-xx10 are "First" years of xx+1 century All years xx11-xx20 are "(please find here appropriate term in English, in Russian it sounds like "Tenths" years of xx+1 century All years xx21-xx30 are "twenties" of xx+1 century All years xx31-xx40 are "thirties" of xx+1 century and so on. Front315 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. I can't argue that ru.Wikipedia shouldn't work that way, but ours shouldn't, per long-standing consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Decades need fixing!!!
almost every decade lacks it's second year... for example in - 1070s (decade) - article the year 1070 is immediately followed by 1072, with 1071 nowhere to be found. This is true with all the other decades as well, I checked thoroughly --Dj777cool (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Worst article ever
they are using the ---0s all by themselves by creating it in around 20th century and nowdays since then they don't count up with the decades like the centuries and milleniums in ordinal numbers instead they counted like our age like our Noughties years of age are 0-9 and our nineties years of age are age 90-99. Teh decade are supposed to be like the 197th decade (1961-1970), 100th decade (991-1000), 150th decade (1491-1500), 190th decade (1891-1900), people forget there was no year 0 and decade has to be 10 years not more than 10 not less than 10. Then stop calling the decades the Seventies, Eighties, Tenties again ever otherwise we then later call the century the 2000s as 20--.
- Inconsistency is not forbidden in cultural references. Culturally, "The 70s", with no other qualifier (for this period in history anyway), has to refer to 1970 - 1979. Etc. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there a "List of Named Decades"?
If so, I can't find it. Here's an idea of how it could be populated, for now anyway, at this time in history. Such a List might indicate:
"The 20s" refers to 1920 - 1929 (184.108.40.206 above notwithstanding)
"The 30s" refers to 1930 - 1939
etc. through "The 90s"
"The 2000s" referring to 2000 - 2009
"The 2010s" referring to 2010 - 2019
(I'm not sure if "The 1910s" was in use back then, or even if it is currently an acceptable convention.)
So such a "List of Named Decades" or a "List of Names of Decades" could catalog such things and it's Talk Page could help find references to resolve such matters. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)