Jump to content

Talk:Century/Archive 1

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

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

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

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

old See also

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"-cento"

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

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

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)

It is a pity that nobody was able to give an abbreviation for "century" in correspondence to k for kilo for thousnad!!!!! 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E576:7308:B00F:4DBB (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Major 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

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.

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)

February 2018

I wanted to address this change to avoid confusion like this here: [1]. Popular appeals to most people, the millennium celebrations were mostly held on 1999-2000 rather than 2000-2001, which is why the term ‘popular’ was used. To describe what most people did. It was also used in Oxford to describe the reckoning of centuries from **00 to **99, whereas strict means **01-**00. The ‘odometer’ effect doesn’t seem right because the statement that 21st century is ‘sometimes considered to begin on January 1, 2000’ is incorrect since most people think of the 21st century as 20xx rather than 2001-2100. I know this is wrong, but that’s Psychologically correct and provided with a reliable source per WP:IRS. Perhaps I should’ve been more clear before posting the difference between ‘popularly’ and ‘strictly’. My apologies. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Well, it's not technically incorrect unless they specifically state "The 21st Century AD", since 1900 to 1999 is a distinct century known as the 1900s, and there's no rule saying we can't count how many positive numbered centuries of that type there's been, and who's going to enforce it if there were such a rule? The Time Police? They're too busy stopping amateur time travelers from creating paradoxes to bother piddling about with semantics. You'd just have to count 0000-0999 as the first century in whatever proleptic calendar you use, where 0000 would be equivalent to 1 BC, if you were using the scheme that utilizes the BC/AD calendar eras (or BCE/CE).219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok? I don't know where your going there... Iamthemostwanted2015x (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Disagree with logic in edit regarding year 0

In this edit Iamthemostwanted2015 restored a passage which I consider illogical:

The astronomical year numbering and ISO 8601 systems both contain a year zero, so the first century begins with the year zero, rather than the year one.

Just because a year numbering system contains a year 0 does not mean one has to treat it as the first year of the first century. ISO 8601 does so, because that standard usually requires 4 digit years, so the first century can just be written "00". But astronomical year numbering is not a formal standard, and there is no convention I know of about when centuries begin or end when using astronomical year numbering. The edit summary states

There are many different calendars, the Gregorian calendar is not used by atheists and non-catholics, they use the CE calendar. NASA uses the astronomical calendar.)

I disagree. Atheists and non-catholics often use the Gregorian calendar, and NASA uses many different year notations, including AD.

As counterexample to the edit, a person might use year 1 as the first year of the first century in order to define centuries the same way many people do, but use astronomical year numbering to make the calculation of intervals that cross 1 January 1. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the Gregorian calendar is based off the incarnation of Jesus Christ, which makes it a very religious thing to base a calendar of. Athesits and non-catholics (Jewish, Greeks, etc.) use the Common Era calendar and actually use the terms CE/BCE instead of AD/BC.[1]
Many people whose religion is Catholic indeed say that this year is 2018 AD, but this does not mean everyone else uses it. See here for my evidence: https://www.ancient.eu/article/1041/the-origin-and-history-of-the-bcece-dating-system/.
Another point, if it has a year zero, why wouldn't the person be able to consider it the first year of the first century? You can't force people to begin with the year one just because the Gregorian calendar never had it.
This is simply a matter of who uses what calendar, I find it confusing why you don't think the first century should begin with the year 0 when it exists in the ISO calendar, and the Astronomical Year Numbering System, the calendar NASA uses. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
Neither Common Era nor Anno Domini are calendars. They two names for one system of numbering years. At least three calendars can be used with this year numbering system, Gregorian, Julian, and Revised Julian.
Your question "Another point, if it has a year zero, why wouldn't the person be able to consider it the first year of the first century?" is much different than your edit. Your edit says "According to the strict construction of the Gregorian calendar, because there was no year zero, the 1st century began with the year 1 and ended with the year 100." This means the existence of the year zero is the cause of treating 0 as the first year of the first century. But the just because the year 0 exists doesn't force anyone to treat it as the first year of the first century. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bce
First, I never wrote: ‘because there was no year zero.’ I think it was Dweller that wrote that, but I reverted it because there is a year zero in some systems. Second, you are NOT correct about the CE and AD being different names but not different calendars, you ignored the fact that people who aren’t catholic do not use the Gregorian calendar. Like I told you last time, go see the article Common Era.
The AD is based off the year Jesus was born, but that is a religious connotation. If you aren’t catholic, you’d most likely be using the CE and BCE versions and therefore, the common era calendar.
Second, of course they CAN use a year zero, if they want. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
Iamthemostwanted, you are quite simply WRONG about the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian calendar is not specifically Catholic or even Christian. It is the calendar used worldwide. It is used by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, etc for all int e national purposes. Traditionally, the two terms BC and AD have been used to refer to the teo eras. However, CE and BCE have been adopted by some to refer to the same two eras without making any implicit religious claims. They are simply two sets of terms for the same thing.--Khajidha (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2018 (year UTC)
@Khajidha ‘Assertions’ differ from ‘facts’, do not mistakenly assume without proof. Please read the Gregorian calendar and you’ll see it’s based off the birth of Jesus Christ so your statement of the Gregorian calendar not being: ‘specifically Catholic or Christian is wrong’ is incorrect. I politely ask you watch what your saying before posting it. And provide a reliable source that otherwise claims I’m wrong, and that non-Catholics use the Gregorian calendar. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
Read the Gregorian calendar article yourself. You'll see that it agrees that non-Catholics use it. And we aren't discussing its origins, we are discussing its usage. --Khajidha (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
And your wrong about non-Catholics using the Gregorian calendar. Just stop trying, it’ll help your blood pressure if you accept that. For unknown reasons, Wikipedia blacklisted a source from usage which claims both Khajidha and Jc3s5h are incorrect when it comes to usage over calendars. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
Until either one of you provide a reliable source that claims I’m wrong, I will no longer respond. Like I said, it really surprises me that pedants get emotional over when a century begins/ends when the calendar is arbitrary and this time, who uses the calendar and who doesn’t.
@Khajidha Do not revert my edit until you provide a reliable source which would settle this dispute, not using an assertion. Until then. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
Maybe it's blacklisted because it isn't true? See Adoption of the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian calendar was adopted by Turkey in 1926, by China in 1912, by Saudi Arabia in 2016. NONE of these are Catholic countries. --Khajidha (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's the source for Saudi Arabia. https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21711938-hauling-saudi-arabia-21st-century-saudi-arabia-adopts-gregorian --Khajidha (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
According to the US Naval Observatory, the Gregorian calendar is "the civil calendar in use around the world". (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/calendars.php) --Khajidha (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite simple: Lots pf people are unable to distinguish between a period/span of time (years, minutes seconds, ...) and a point in the time scala. Simply remember the temperature scale. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E576:7308:B00F:4DBB (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E576:7308:B00F:4DBB (talk)

Turn of the century

In this edit User:Iamthemostwanted2015 added this passage:

The term 'turn of the century' refers to a year that starts a new century. During the early 20th century, the term 'turn of the (20th) century' was designated to the year 1901, while in contemporary history, the term 'turn of the (21st) century' is designated to the year 2000.

I object to this passage for the following reasons:

  1. The other statements and sources in the article indicate there is a tension between when academic and government sources (such as the US Naval Observatory) consider a century to begin, and when the general public has the biggest celebrations. No reliable sources have been presented to support the idea that the proponents of the idea that a century begins in a year ending in 1 have a different view of the turn of beginning of the 20th century vs. the beginning of the 21st century. Likewise, no reliable sources have been presented to show popular celebrations were larger on Dec. 31, 1900 / Jan. 1, 1901 compared to Dec. 31, 1899 / Jan. 1, 1900.
  2. The passage uses the present tense, "refers to a year". No reliable sources have been presented to show that people today think 1901 was the first year of the 20th century but 2000 was the first year of the 21st century.
  3. "Turn of the century" is often used in a vague sense. No reliable sources have been presented to show that people using this phrase intend to be precise to a single year.

Jc3s5h (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've always encountered "turn of the century" used in the vague way Jc3s5h mentions. --Khajidha (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that "was designated to" is simply incorrect English.--Khajidha (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits by Iamthemostwanted2015x

I have reverted a series of edits by User:Iamthemostwanted2015x. In the first edit the editor asserts "In strict usage, centuries commence with the years ending in '01' and concluded with the years ending in '00'." That's wrong, because the year 1 does not have a leading 0. The second edit inserts an HTML comment, "Do not mention the '1700s', '1800s', '1900s', etc. because they are barley used." This is wrong.

The third edit deletes the sentence

Because of this, a century will only include one year, the centennial year, that starts with the century's number (e.g. 1900 was the last year of the 19th century).

Perhaps this statement is unnecessary, but the edit summary is unrelated to the change:

Source for this? Never heard of that. Also, here is the link to any pedant who says the Gregorian calendar (falsely) began with the year 1: http://time.com/4462775/bc-ad-dating-history/

Jc3s5h (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The first point is (ironically, given his penchant for using the word) beyond pedantic. The year 1 is not written with leading zeros, but they are understood to be there when comparing to years with larger numbers of digits. The second point is false. I often encounter the usage of "the 1700s" and the like. The third seems to be confusion on Iamthemostwanted2015's part about the point in question, as the source given (regardless of the fact that Time Magazine is a rather low quality source on this matter, compared to many others in this article) mentions only that the AD system was first adopted in 525 not that it started at that point in time. To say that the AD system "began with the year 1" is to state that the years labelled AD have as their lowest representative the year 1 AD. That is, that there is no 0 AD or -1 AD etc. --Khajidha (talk)

March 2019 edit about "strict" and definition

In this edit, Khajidha made the following change, restoring an earlier version of the passage:

As some authorities, such as the United States Naval Observatory, interpretAccording to the strict construction of the Gregorian calendar, the 1st century AD began with 1 AD and ended with 100 AD...

The edit summary stated

(→‎Start and end in the Gregorian calendar: no, it's about how it was defined, thus it is the "strict construction")

The Gregorian calendar was defined in Inter gravissimas and the meaning was refined and fleshed out in contemporaneous writing, such as Romani calendarii a Gregorio XIII. P. M. restituti explicatio (1603) by Christoph Clavius. I must admit I do not read Latin, and have not read the work bo Clavius, but I am not aware of any of the foundation documents of the Gregorian calendar addressing how to write years near AD 1, nor addressing when a century begins and ends.

As for redefiining it now, or in recent years, I suggest it's too late for that. With the Gregorian calendar having been adopted world wide for both secular and many religious purposes, any attempt by the Pope to redefine it would not be widely accepted, and no one else is in a position to change it either.

Some quasi-official authorities, such as the United States Naval Observatory, have weighed in on the matter, but governments almost never have any official matter depend on when a century begins, in contrast to when a day or a year begins. This being the case, the presumption should be that government agencies have not been empowered to rule on when a century begins, and any writing to that effect is merely the advice of the government employee authors (unless a clear-cut grant of authority can be found).

So it really boils down to academics preferring one usage and the general public preferring a different usage, as with the word "ain't".

I have edited the article accordingly. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It was defined as starting with the year 1 AD. A century is defined as 100 years. The first century is thus, by these definitions, the years 1 - 100. It is basic counting. --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no indication that Inter gravissimas was intended to change the year numbering invented by Dionysius Exiguus in his Easter table. The definition of AD 1 is the year Dionysius chose to honor the Incarnation (Christianity). But there is uncertainty about what that year was. There are many questions.
  1. Did Dionysius intend AD 1 to be the first full year after the Incarnation, or the year in which the Incarnation occurred?
  2. Did Dionysius think of the Incarnation as the Annunciation (May 25) or Nativity (Dec 25)?
  3. Did Dionysius think of the year beginning on January 1, which was the first day of the year for many purposes in Rome when he lived, or did he think of it as August 29, which Greek astronomers and clerics used, in connection with the Diocletian era, and which was used in the table that Dionysius extended?
Since there are no clear answers to these questions, there is nothing to stop anyone from considering the first century of the Incarnation, when using a calendar that begins on January 1, to comprise the years 1 BC to and including 99 AD. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
All of which is irrelevant to the fact that we are talking about the centuries AD. The first century AD cannot, by definition, include BC years. --Khajidha (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
You have no authority to define a century AD. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the above is a bit complex, I will give a hypothetical interpretation that is consistent with everything we know. I'm setting the hypothesis off in italics. Dionysius used the same beginning of year date as the table he extended, the c. AD 390 table of Theophilus of Alexandria, that is, August 29. Dionysius believed Incarnation should be treated as the Nativity which he dated to what we would call 2 BC December 25. He thought AD 1 should be the first full year after the Incarnation, 1 BC August 29 through AD 1 August 28. But since we start the year on January 1, we would consider the first full year after the incarnation to be 1 BC January 1 through AD 1 December 31. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not defining it, I'm using the definitions of the words. "First" = with none before it. "Century" = 100 years. "AD" = those years included in the era labelled "anno domini". The "first century AD" is thus, by definition, the first 100 years labelled as being in the "anno domini" era. If it started earlier, it would not be 100 years in the AD era. If it started later, it would not be the first such grouping in the AD era. --Khajidha (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you have failed to produce a reliable source I will start an RfC. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I need to produce a reliable source for the basic definitions of words?--Khajidha (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh by the way the first year labeled AD was 525, in a cover letter that Dionysius wrote to accompany his table. (Bonnie Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year, Oxford, 1999 reprinted with corrections 2003, p. 779). Jc3s5h (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Really? So the years 1 AD through 524 AD do not exist? I think you are focusing too much on the introductory proposal and not enough on the system in actual usage. The first year (first as in actual chronological order) that is referred to as a year anno domini is 1 AD. ---Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Describing positions about the beginning of centuries AD

The consensus is to use the "strict usage" and "general usage" wording restored in this edit.

Cunard (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should the two principal positions about when centuries begin and end in modern times be described. The current article states "One is based on strict construction, while the other is based on popular perspective (general usage)" and has similar language in other parts of the article. But it is not clear that the sources aligned with the so-called "strict" view have any authority with which to impose strictness. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Leave as "strict construction", as it is based on the simple meanings of the words as strictly construed. --Khajidha (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My view is that there are two frequently-written-about views, described in the article. The article describes the point of view that the 21st century began 1 January 2001 as "strict construction of the Gregorian calendar". The viewpoint is supported by a citation to the US Naval Observatory, which states

Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100.

Use of the phrase "strict construction" implies this viewpoint is more rigorously correct than the other point of view, and the only reasons to reject this view would be that it is overly pedantic or too inconvenient. But arguments can be made the inventor of the AD era, Dionysius Exiguus, if he had been told that in the 21s century the year would begin on January 1, and if he were asked when the first and last days of the 21st century were, might have answered that the first day would be 1 January 2000 and the last day would be 31 December 2100.

Bonnie Blackburn & Leofranc Holford-Strevens, in The Oxford Companion to the Year (Oxford, 1999 corrected reprinting 2003, p. 779–780, hypothesize that Dionysius may have begun the year in September for purposes of his Easter table, may have treated the Incarnation (Christianity) as synonymous with birth, "and counted in elapsed, not current years, then the first full year after the incarnation ran from 1 September 1 BC to 31 August AD 1", and he placed the incarnation on 25 December 2 BC. This source does not address when modern centuries should begin or end, but if the incarnation is placed on 25 December 2 BC, and 1 January is chosen as the first day of the year, then the first full year after the incarnation ran from 1 January 1 BC to 31 December 1 BC, and the first full century after the incarnation ran from 1 January 1 BC to 31 December AD 99. This interpretation, while it incorporates some hypotheses. is no less strict than the USNO interpretation. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Use only the strict interpretation. Why confuse an already confusing topic?? Perhaps add an example like this (provided by Jc3s5h): the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
We don't get to make the rules, we only get to report the positions taken by others. See WP:WEIGHT. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
See also WP:NOR; all the hypothesizing about what Exiguus might have intended and why is OR, with a thin veneer of previously published ideas behind it. The "comprises the years AD 1901–2000" definition is what the RS tell us is the conventional interpretation, and always has been. How WP:WEIGHT really applies is in treating the 1900–1999 idea as having the same weight. It doesn't. It's a popular misconception, but like all popular misconceptions we can cover what RS say about it, but we don't engage in false equivalence about it (WP:FRINGE).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
When it comes to language conventions, there's no such thing as a popular misconception. Language is chosen by the masses and is whatever the masses say it is. This is different from things that can be experimentally verified. The popular misconception that in the northern hemisphere, the Earth is closer to the Sun in June and further away in December can be objectively disproven. Language is a popularity contest and can't be disproven with logic or measurements. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, so if you are looking for historical and scientific reasoning, you can just skip right over my comments here! I have to tell you, when it was December 31, 1999 and at midnight it turned to the year 2000, that was big, really big around the world. No one celebrated like that (I mean, yes, they celebrated) when we rolled the clocks to 2001. The public's view is obviously that rolling to the big 00 is the turn of the century, that the century is running from January 1, 1900 to December 31, 1999. Things change over time, and discussing what Dionysius Exiguus really meant to happen, and if it was in September or December, I mean, that just shows that some things have to roll with culture, and that it is apparent that the contemporary definition is linked to "Party like it's 1999" StarHOG (Talk) 14:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with "strict construction", since it's sourceable. PS: For anyone not familiar with the debate and its background, see the article Year zero. Back around the turn of the millennium, I saw an article (in the mainstream press) about how confused people are today in thinking that the 21st century began on 1 January 2000, while people in 1900 would not have thought this (according to the article); something in our education system got dropped between then and now. By the 1980s, it was a common belief that the then-current millennium would end on 31 Dec. 1999 (e.g. Prince's song "Party like It's 1999").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with the "strict usage" and "general usage" distinction, and that the article as it now stands is clear. Jzsj (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the distinction. The article is clear as it stands now. JohnThorne (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in so late, but as there are many great articles that cover this controversy in depth, perhaps we should include a sidebar at that top of articles or sections that hit this nerve. The sidebar can plainly and clearly state that "in this article the ___ convention will be used – e.g. the 20th century begins on ___ and ends on ___." That said, even though I speak and work as though there is a year zero, the editorial reality of the expansive scope of this encyclopedia demands that strict construction be the convention when needed – with anything not well-known or well-understood to the public, the general rule is that an editor should try to avoid the choice of odd conventions altogether. A sidebar would cover cases where the convention question must be addressed directly.
For further reference, I only have the complete NYT and Chicago MOS for alternative takes on this. From Chicago:

"Note also that some consider the first decade of, for example, the twenty­-first century to consist of the years 2001-10; the second, 20ll-20; and so on. Chicago defers to the preference of its authors in this matter." ["9.34 Decades". The Chicago manual of style (16 ed.). 2010. p. 476. ISBN 9780226104201.]

From NYT:

Technically a century begins with the "01" year —– 1901, 2001, etc. — because there was no year 0. But in the popular consciousness, "turn of the century" means 1900, 2000, etc. That informal style is acceptable in references to celebrations, observances and social or cultural turning points. Articles dealing centrally with the calendar should mention the literal interpretation, but without belittling popular usage. [Siegal, Allan M.; Connolly, William (2015). "years, decades, centuries". The New York Times Manual Of Style And Usage. pp. 1088–1089. ISBN 9781101903223.]

If anyone has the complete MLA, AP, and Oxford manuals we can get a wider scope of how to deal with this, but again I suggest the tried-and-true principle to controversy of avoid whenever possible, explain/notate whenever necessary. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The consensus is that no, the disputed edits are not in accordance with the March 2019 RFC.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Are August 2019 edits in accord with March 2019 RFC above?

Are this edit to "Decade" and this edit to "Century" in accord with the March RFC above titled "RfC: Describing positions about the beginning of centuries AD"? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  • No. The new edits indicate the only correct convention is for decades and centuries to start in years who's last two digits are 01, but the reliable sources in the article show that the convention of beginning them in years who's last two digits are "00" are also acceptable. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Jc3s5h: You say this edit to "Century" but don't link an edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ABSOLUTELY NOT for decade. There are no guidelines and few people who use the "strict" form for decades. It may deserve mention, but the "odometer" convention is both used by the general public and by experts. No for centuries; per Jc3s5h. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, after looking at the diff, the ordinal (it would be unfair to call it "strict") form for decades should be further deprecated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The most common way to count centuries and decades is to group years with the same hundreds or tens digit but that's not correct. Do you think it's correct to count the period from year 1 to year 9 as a decade? I don't think that's correct. The years 1-9 is not ten years. Therefore, decades must be counted from a year ending on the digit 1 to a year which is a multiple of ten, like 1981-1990 rather than 1980-1989: In the end of the 1989 it was only 1989 years past and 1989 is not a multiple of ten as 1990 is.
The same thing with centuries: A century is a period of 100 years, therefore a century must be counted from a year ending on 01 to the following year which is a multiple of 100: The 1st century is the years 1-100 rather than 1-99, the 20th century is the years 1901-2000 rather than 1900-1999 and so on. In the end of 1999 it was 1999 years past and 1999 is not a multiple of 100.
This is the reason that I'm writing even though the most common way to count decades and centuries is to group years with the same hundreds or tens digit, this way to count decades and centuries is not correct, as this would refer the 1st century to the years 1-99 which is only 99 years: The 1st century was 1-100, not 1-99. Perhaps others don't agree with my reason but others are not 100% correct with their interpretation that a century or decade may be counted based on the same hundreds or tens digit. BHB95 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia verifiability policy demands claims in articles be supported by reliable sources. When reliable sources disagree, the neutral point-of-view policy requires that all non-fringe points of view be reported. BHB95's pronouncements are not recognized by Wikipedia because Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Both uses for century. I think we all agree the 20th century began on January 1, 1901 and ended on December 31st, 2000. I think we also agree the 1900s began on January 1st, 1900 and ended on December 31st, 1999. I think we all agree both uses are equally acceptable and common. I think we all understand the 1900s is NOT exactly equal to the 20th century. If we all agree, can we just say that, using sources that are acceptable to all?---- Work permit (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
If anyone doubts that terms like "the 20th century" are not common, or that the term is not defined in the way I mentioned, then I will provide reliable sources. There are plenty.---- Work permit (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources that agree with Work permit are easy enough to find; one is already cited in the article. But since the other position can be found in reliable sources, it must be presented too, in accordance with the neutral point-of-view policy. The Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed. (2017) in section 9.33 ("Decades") states
    Decades. Decades are either expressed in numerals or spelled out (as long as the century is clear) and lowercased. Chicago calls for no apostrophe to appear between the year and the s (see 7.15)
    the 1940s and the 1950s (or, less formally, the 1940s and '50s)
    or
    the forties and fifties
    Note that the first decade of any century cannot be treated in the same way as other decades. "The 2000s," for example, could easily be taken to refer to the whol of the twenty-first century. To refer to the second decade (i.e., without writing "second decade"), prefer numerals (e.g., 1910s); the expression "the teens" should be avoided, at least in formal contexts.
    the first decade of the twenty-first century (or the years 2000–2009)
    the second decade of the twenty-first century or the 2010s (or the years 2010–19)
    Note that some consider the first decade of, for example, the twenty-first century to consist of the years 2001–2010, the second 2011–2020; and so on. Chicago defers to the preference of its authors in this matter. See also 8.71, 9.64.
    Chicago is sufficiently important that the position that centuries given names such twentieth century, twenty-first century, etc., and decades these centuries are composed of, begin in years ending in 00 and 0 respectively must be presented as a valid usage, and not as an outright error. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC), expanded 23:44 UT due to misinterpretation of the shorter version by another editor.
You correctly point out I limited my observation to year numbering within centuries. I agree decade numbering within a century is not consistent with year numbering. And so the 20th century starts on January 1, 1901. But the first decade of the 20th century is the 1900s, which of course starts on January 1, 1900. We should, as you say, point that out in the article. I have never een the term "200th decade" used. I have only seen decades described using the "odometer" rule (eg 1920s).---- Work permit (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Chicago can certainly be cited but is not dispositive and I suspect a thorough search of sources would show that interpretation to be in the minority? ---- Work permit (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps its best for me to wait for your expanded quote.---- Work permit (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No, that is, the edits to restrict the standard use of decade and century are overly prescriptive rather than descriptive and do not follow common usage. I have been saying since 1998 when the year 2000 problem was being addressed that there are three ways of defining a century: pedantic, a hundred years ending with an 00 year (e.g., 1801-1900, 1901-2000); popular, a hundred years beginning with a 00 year (e.g., 1800-1899, 1900-1999); and technical, where the technical use is that the field containing the high-order digits, '19' is the 'century' field. There are technical reasons having to do with the parsing of data why that use is simpler; it is also the same as the popular usage. Therefore restricting standard use to the pedantic use should be deprecated not only by popular authors but by computer scientists. The same flexibility should apply to 'decade'. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    Robert McClenon's version of technical usage really isn't the same as popular usage. In popular usage the period 1 January 1900 to and including 31 January 1999 would be called "the 20th century", while in McClenon's technical usage, the century would be 19, and would probably only be found in some field or parameter in a computer program or database; it probably wouldn't be found in a complete English sentence. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
That is sort of true, but if I had been writing the bug report, I would have written it in complete sentences and would have referred to the century field as the century field. In any case, it is a reason why strict prescriptive enforcement of the pedantic rule is rigid, strict, and prescriptive rather than descriptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Friends (and others if any) I am not voting on this, nor even debating it, because there is a simple reason that it has bogged down in all the supporters of rival ideas slooowly and loudly repeating the same things to each other. The fact is that there is no cogently conclusive basis, mathematical, social, nor historical, for imposing any one convention rather than another. The calendar is a mess in many ways, for the simple reasons that the originators, and also most of the (ahem) "authorities" that developed the subsequent systems based on them, seemed to have been mathematically unsophisticated and seem to have failed to predict the nonsense that they were imposing on their posterity. (NB: I am not saying that I would have done better in their sandals, but that is hardly an explanation, let alone an excuse, especially because our ancestors failed to consult me in the first place.) The only defensible extant system so far is the palaeontological or cosmological one of BP (or similar) in which the time spans are beyond any scale that could meaningfully take account of years or decades, or even centuries usually. What we are to do here is essentially a matter of taste. Various versions of history vs maths, and sociology vs both. And every one to establish its unique merits and authority over all the others by shouting. The religious basis of the Dionysian system is nonsensical, and mathematically indefensible in its extension to beyond its original rationale, which was in itself incoherent and inconsistent at best. If it leads to different conventions for years, decades, centuries and millennia, that is a black mark, but if it is imposed by authority, then go ahead.
    The fact that the Great Unwashed like to go by the most significant digits is tempting, but in the absence of official consensus is not authoritative.
    What I suggest (but don't bother to argue with me, as I am not the one in authority) is to permit any creator of an article to use whichever system s/he chooses, but whenever the choice makes a substantial difference in context, to make it clear which convention is being used and why.
    The rational system would have been to start over, say with a new year zero (Ground Zero), starting with the Northern Winter Solstice of 1945, a sensible structure of weeks and months, and with years identified when necessary, as the appropriate number followed by say, BGZ, GZ, and PGZ (Letters chosen for easy sorting). Have leap days for maintaining the solstice as the first day of the year, and keeping weeks consistent. Religious calendars may continue as they please, as at present, and be ignored, also as at present. But I doubt that this improvement will happen soon enough to settle our dispute. JonRichfield (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • NO: There is no problem with the validity of “1960s”-style decades and “1900s”-style centuries, which are vernacular references, more concise and easier to understand than those used in the formal ordinal system. Both systems are valid, within their own terms. However, given the formal structure of the calendar as it exists, the terminologies of the differently-based usages are not logically interchangeable; this is the opening paragraph of the current Wikipedia article on “21st century”:
    The 21st (twenty-first) century is the current century of the Anno Domini era or Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2100. It is the first century of the 3rd millennium. It is distinct from the century known as the 2000s which began on January 1, 2000, and will end on December 31, 2099.
    A number of comments here have mentioned Wikipedia:NPOV, but of course Wikipedia is not entirely neutral in this matter. When these issues were first considered when the articles on specific decades, centuries, and millennia were originally composed (perhaps someone can recall the discussions then and point to the relevant archived Talk pages), a compromise must have been agreed, which produced the List of decades employing the “1960s” type decades, while both the List of centuries and the List of millennia employ the formal ordinal system, in each case along with the associated articles for each specific calendar period. This resulted in the present anomalous situation, with vernacular 0-to-9 decades which do not align with the formal 001-to-100 centuries and 0001-to-1000 millennia.
    What is clear for the present discussion is that the content of the articles on the terms ‘decade’ and ‘century’ must be consistent with the other articles on those topics in Wikipedia, and I think they should both be returned to something like the state they were in before the recent edits by User:BHB95, when they had apparently been acceptable to most other editors. The 'decade' article should give precedence to the popular or vernacular definition, but with a secondary mention of the formal ordinal usage which some people still prefer to use; similarly, the 'century' article should give precedence to the formal ordinal definition, with a secondary mention of the popular usage. In each case, there should be a notation of the usage preferred for Wikipedia articles pertaining to those respective calendar periods. Finally, since the term “strict usage” fallaciously implies that other usages are not ‘strict’, I suggest that term should be replaced by “formal usage”. Blurryman (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    The article title is "Century", not "Nth century". All agree "the 1900s" and "the 20th century" are both centuries. The disagreement is whether they coincide exactly. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    The current Wikipedia article on “20th century” states that:
    "The 20th (twentieth) century was a century that began on January 1, 1901 and ended on December 31, 2000. It was the tenth and final century of the 2nd millennium. It is distinct from the century known as the 1900s which began on January 1, 1900 and ended on December 31, 1999."
    The century of "the 1900s" could only be "the 20th century" in a calendar which started with a Year 0, but the present calendar starts with a Year 1. Blurryman (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In my experience all the "Nth century" articles are crap. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    The "21st century" article cites Scientific American. What exactly is it you don't like about the "Nth century" articles? Blurryman (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    I don't agree with the dogmatic definition of the century. I don't see any citation to Scientific American. The Nth century articles pick the most important events of the century but the selections are merely the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    The citation to Scientific American is reference [2] in the "21st century" article. I've now edited it to show that. Blurryman (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no previous commenters have addressed the question of the RfC, so I will: No, these edits are not in accord with (the consensus of) the March RfC. The consensus as summarized by the closer was to use "strict usage" and "general usage" terminology, and the edits in question do not use it and in fact remove it. The consensus further was to use specific text and the edit materially changes from it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    I don't understand your introductory remark. Please explain how the initial responses of "No" or "Absolutely not", from several commenters, to the question posed at the head of this section are in any way different from your "No"? Blurryman (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISO 8601 and "year zero"

"The astronomical year numbering and ISO 8601 systems both contain a year zero, so the first century begins with the year zero, rather than the year one."

That is incorrect, ISO 8601 is only applicable for dates after the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, cf https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ISO_8601 "However, years prior to 1583 are not automatically allowed by the standard. Instead "values in the range [0000] through [1582] shall only be used by mutual agreement of the partners in information interchange."[18]". Therefore, there is NO year 0 inside the range of definition of ISO 8601!2001:A61:BDB:C901:6D12:C993:6C2C:BD54 (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not have an official published ISO 8601 document, due to the exorbitant cost. I do have a 2016 working draft which says in part
So even though agreement with the data exchange partners is required to write "0000", the standard treats any century as beginning on January 1 of a year that is evenly divisible by 100. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Added clause b and c in response to 2001:A61:BDB:C901:6D12:C993:6C2C:BD54's comments, 4 January 2020 19:29 UT.
That is an incorrect extrapolation and is NOT backed by your quote. It simply says that 19 designates the 19th century, not 1900 or inclusion of month and day. It does not make any statement whatsoever about the starting date of centuries, and as you wrote, it's just a draft. Also, it still stands clear per Wikipedia article about the ISO 9601, that NO year zero exists in ISO 8601.It is simply outside the defintion range, there does not exist in the scope of ISO 8601.2001:A61:BDB:C901:6D12:C993:6C2C:BD54 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I expanded the quote to add material that helps interpret it.
ISO 8601 does not exist in a vacuum; there are only two popular ways to refer to the period that begins around 1900 and ends around 2000: either "the 1900s" or "the 20th century". (At least in English, which is the dominant language of the computer industry, which is the realm that ISO 8601 deals with.) The fact that 1985 changes to 19 for century precision shows that ISO 8601 means "the 1900s", not "the 19th century", which would be from around 1800 to around 1900.
There is widespread agreement that the first day of "the 1900s" was 1 January 1900 and the last day was 31 December 1999. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Please present proper sources to backup that claim. The 19th century began on 1901-01-01, because there is NO year zero. Not in Gregorian calendar, not in ISO 8601, nowhere. Counting begins always at 1. When you count and have to select the first 10 people in a crowd, the members of this array are 1, 2, 3 ... 9, and 10. The second ten people start at 11 and end at 20. And just as like, the first 1000 years start with 1 and end with 1000.2001:A61:BDB:C901:6D12:C993:6C2C:BD54 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The 19th century began on 1801-01-01 .... What the ISO 8601's century called "19" is is unclear from the standard excerpts above, but it is probably the 1900s (century), rather than the 19th century or 20th century. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I found a preview of ISO 8601-1.[1] It contains this passage:

I believe that the two passages I quoted, taken together, means that in ISO 8601-1:2019, the 19th century, comprising the years 1800 to and including 1899, would be expressed as "18". Jc3s5h (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ISO 8601-1:2019(en), Date and time — Representations for information interchange — Part 1: Basic rules". Open Browsing Platform. International Standards Organization. 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
Quite simple: Lots pf people are unable to distinguish between a period/span of time (years, minutes seconds, ...) and a point in the time scala. Simply remember the temperature scale. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E576:7308:B00F:4DBB (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E576:7308:B00F:4DBB (talk)

Writing style

What is the standard and acceptable way of writing down the centuries? Are Latin numerals accepted? In some languages centuries are mostly written as the XXI century. How common this practice is in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.126.192 (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't recall if using Roman numerals for centuries was common in the US in the middle of the 20th century, when Roman numerals were somewhat common in formal documents. But by the 21st century, Roman numerals are very much out of favor for almost any purpose, and are no longer taught in schools. The only common use I can think of is as a suffix when a person has the same name as an immediate ancestor. So if John Smith has a son John Smith, the son would be John Smith Jr. If there were a grandson named John Smith, he would be John Smith III. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
In the UK, all British-made programmes for television, both BBC and ITV, have traditionally used Roman numerals for the year of production, as shown on the final credits page, so currently this appears as MMXX. However, some producers of programmes for commercial channels have recently started to use Latin numerals. --Blurryman (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Century/Archive_1&oldid=1182740769"