WikiProject Years (Rated List-class)
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.
List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.

## 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)

Shouldn't we explain here what decades are rather than just list them???? (talk)--BozMo 20:43, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, put it in Kransky 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

## Unsourced comment

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)

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 76.90.129.95 (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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

[[User:Richardkeefe57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardkeefe57 (talkcontribs) 00:48, 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 95.26.32.76 (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)

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)

1071 exists, is this an april fools joke? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This was not a joke - see 1070s for yourself --- list of events occurring in the 1070s, ordered by year, but 1070 is followed by 1072 in the events line.. every decade is like this --Dj777cool (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It has already been fixed by this user on April 11 - User:John of Reading. --Dj777cool (talk) 20:47, 12 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--.

SonicTV64 (talk) May 28, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.80.36 (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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 actually such a commonly used cultural reference for the first 9 years of the Gregorian calendar though? I have not encountered it outside of Wikipedia and a Google search indicate that it's not the case. Including something that is not a 10 year period in a list of decades would perhaps be justifiable if it was commonly done outside of Wikipedia, but if that is not the case, I propose that we remove the "0s" from this list. Andreaseksted (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:YEARS was not notified; inconsistency as part of a unified system, so that each year is a member of a'"decade" is more important than the anomalies you are creating. Reverting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You refered to "long-standing consensus" in your edit summary? Could you please tell me in what discussion was this consensus established? I have admittedly not read all discussion on all the relevant articles, but I have looked though a substantial portion of them and have not yet found any consensus on including those nine year periods in lists of decades.
I don't really see such a large need for every year being part of a decade. While that would be nice, it is not anywhere close to as important as avoiding such blatant inaccuracies. It would be one thing if calling those nine year periods decades was commonly used outside of Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell that is not the case.Andreaseksted (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Since WP:YEARS have now been notified and since despite looking some more, I have been unable to find a discussion that establishes such a long standing consensus, I'm restoring the changes. Andreaseksted (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2017 (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 (203.128.80.36 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)

## Decades running from year 0 to year 9??

Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, eh? This must be about the least encyclopedic thing I've ever come across on Wikipedia. A refusal to count from 1-10, well I assume it's a refusal rather than an inability to do so. What complete nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwladys24 (talkcontribs) 23:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)