Talk:0s

Untitled

How can there be "the 0s" there was no zero year; the calendar went from 1 BC to AD 1? SableSynthesis 08:57, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"0s" = {1, ..., 10}, "10s" = {11, ..., 20} and so on? I don't know, that whole 2000/2001 millenium thing confused the hell out of me :) Dysprosia 08:59, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Presumably the 10s are different than the 2nd decade (the 10s being 10-19, the second decade being 11-20) at least if we follow the format used for centuries (e.g. the 1500s [1500-1599] or the 16th century [1501-1600]). But it seems silly to call the years 1-9 the 0s when there is no zero year. If you really want to know more about the 2000/2001 thing leave a note on my talk page. Thanks SableSynthesis 09:03, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hm, well, I'm not too good with these years business. As to your kind offer: thanks, but my brain's already starting to hurt! :) I mean in all difference, what's a year's difference between friends, eh? :) Dysprosia 09:06, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's consistant in form with the other decades, and it makes more sense than calling it the '1s'--although, the 'units' might not be a bad term ;-). SableSynthesis 09:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This thing is a farce. A decade contains 10 years and it starts from 1 to 10. Most people make the mistake to assume that "1970" or "1990" is the start of a decade; when in fact it is the end of a decade. Please get the facts straight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.132.37 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly right. The definition of "decade" says that it's the period of ten years and still the first decade has only nine years! This makes absolutely no sense at all. Antti29 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly wrong. Any decade, century, or millennium that is named with a year followed by an s begins with the year it is named after. The 10s contains 10-19, not 20. The 0s and 0s BC are the only exceptions, due to the lack of the year 0, because of the primitive Roman mathematics of the 1st millennium. On the other hand, centuries and millenniums that are ordinal, begin with a "1" and end with a "0" year, because there is no year 0. Decades are rarely if ever referred to ordinally. If they were, the 1st decade would be 1-10, and the 200th decade would be 1991-2000. But since we are referred to a set of 0-9, NOT 1-0, we use a year followed by an s. There are two ways, the way you are thinking of is simply NOT used in decade. ordinal and cardinal years are one year apart. 98.209.18.176 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is no clear or universal definition for this specific case. Both 1-9 AD and 1-10 AD are used sometimes. --Monteps (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We use 1-9, per consensus. That others (who don't normally use the term "0s") may use 1-10 doesn't affect our article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, i.e. the main content of article will follow the 1-9 convention. However, the other one should also be mentioned in the article intro as well (so that readers will know there are other usages too), even though it won't affect the main content. --Monteps (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If we can find a source for the concept of 1st decade actually being used, we probably should distinguish that article from this topic in the lede. Must go now. We'll discuss this later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. But there is probably no need for a separate article, as for example in the 2000s and 2010s articles, there are sections named "Names for the decade" to discuss the usage of the names and so on. --Monteps (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ostalk" ?

Why not keep it simple? We count by tens and twenties; and it's quite possible to describe the early or late years of a certain decade by number. I'm much in favor of avoiding the "O" or first "Os" of existence in order to describe clearly what time and/or where in time the so-called quantum is meaningful. Just wondering...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonwatcher~enwiki (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 January 2005 (UTC)

---

Above line was added by someone besides me without signature.

Keeping it simple means to stop using the "zero" decade stuff. It really is quite simple:

Start Year	End Year	Decade	Century	Millenium
1	10	1st	1st (starts)	1st (starts)
11	20	2nd	1st (continues)	1st (continues)
21	30	3rd	1st (continues)	1st (continues)
91	100	10th	1st (ends)	1st (continues)
991	1000	100th	10th (ends)	1st (ends)
1991	2000	200th	20th (ends)	2nd (ends)
2001	2010	201st	21st (starts)	3rd (starts)
1901	1910	191st	20th (starts)	2nd (continues)

The problem only comes when people try to count years like miles on an odometer. They forget there was no year zero.

When we say the year is "2009" or "2010," what we really say is that we are "in the year [of our Lord] 2009" or "in the year [of our Lord] 2010." See an example here: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/signers Bob (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While it makes sense to say that the 1920s consist of the years 1920-29, the third decade of the twentieth century must be 1921-30. Likewise the first decade of the 1st century was -- in terms of our current calendar -- 1-10. This difference is somewhat confusing, but certain unless the first century A.D. is treated as consisting of 99 years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(User talk:SonicTV64) March 5, 2016 Most people say that the decade starts in 0 when jesus was born but jesus was born somewhwere 7-4 BC. The real method that only few people understand it this decade is the 202nd decade starts 2011 and will end in 2020 (not 2010-2019).

Stop calling the decade 0s and 1-9 is not a decade. Why does people not understand this kind of thing?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicTV64 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Page move?

I would like to propose to move this page to 1st decade. That would make more sense than this current version with its 9-year decade, although it will overlap with 10s at 10. - Nat Krause 04:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You cannot make a 9 year decade. That doesn't make any sense and people should change that and actually the 1st decade starts in 1 and ends in 10.

The problem is that people commonly refer to decades as "the 1970s", etc., instead of in a manner consistently with centuries and millennia. *Dan* 14:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but my point is that we should not feel bound to maintain uniformity in cases where it is confusing or unclear. It's very normal to say "the 1970s" or just "the 70s", but nobody says "the 0s". I think 1st decade is a little clearer. 1st decade AD would be even more clear. - Nat Krause 15:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

People don't have all that much occasion to refer in any manner to dates in the 1st century (AD or BC) in everyday conversation, but if you do need to refer to them, it makes some sense to do it in a manner consistent with how more-commonly-used dates are done. *Dan* 16:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

To cut down confusion, a decade must be referred to in a manner like a century. When you say the 20th century, you mean the years 1901-2000; the 1900s means the years 1900-1999. Therefore, when you say the 200th decade, you mean the years 1991-2000; the 1990s means the years 1990-1999. In the example used above, the 1970s are 1970-1979, and the 198th decade is 1971-1980. Making the page move requested is appropriate, and all the decades must move--not just the years 1-10 to the 1st decade. Bob (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But you can say Dec 31, 1990 - Dec 31, 2000 a decade and that is my opinion (User talk:SonicTV64) [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicTV64 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanra

i didnt realize he was born in 0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.255.21 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First decade

The introduction to the article states that "The 0s is usually considered the first decade of the 1st century and the 1st millennium". Is that really the case? I have never heard about that prior to reading this article. Is there a source for that claim? Otherwise it should probably be removed. 213.114.157.166 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed this statement. 213.114.157.166 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Experimental transclusion / formatting

@Pppery: As explained on Talk:AD 1 I'm experimenting with transclusions of the births and deaths from individual year pages to decades pages, in order to populate them and avoid duplication of effort by editors. The reason I don't want to repeat section headers is that there are typically very few births and deaths per year in this part of history, so that we keep just a decade-wide "Births" and "Deaths" entry in the TOC. If we reduce the TOC level instead, then we lose the detail of events by years, which have more content including subsections. Hence pseudo-headers are an appropriate solution here. — JFG ^talk 21:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversy regarding this decade

The 0s is not a proper decade because the purists are correct that is has 9 years in it rather than 10, but this is creating confusion. I can't tell if 0s is the first decade of the AD system or if the 10s decade is. Can someone clear this up for me? Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

It is actually rather simple. Neither of them is the first decade. 0s isn't because it is not a decade in the first place (since it has nine years) and 10s isn't since it starts 9 years late. The first decade of the AD system is the period of time from year 1 to year 10 which as far as I know don't have a dedicated Wikipedia article. The reason why there is no such article is because it has been decided that unlike centuries and millennia which have been given ordinal articles, decades are given articles in another way. This is because decades are usually refereed to in a different way (such as for example the 90s).Andreaseksted (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the first decade AD is ten years and not only nine. The tenth and last year in the 1st decade is year 10; at the end of year 9 it had not passed ten years since the beginning of the common era (which began in the start of year 1 as 1 was the first year).

The first decade of the 21st century is supposed to be counted from year 2001 to (the end of) year 2010, just as the 2nd millennium is supposed to be counted between (the start of) year 1001 and (the end of) year 2000, the 20th century/2nd millennium didn't end in 1999, because in the end of year 1999, it had not passed two thousand years. 212.100.101.104 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Any words with 0s stuffs in it should be called an era instead of a decade and I would say the "Zeroes" are in 1900-1909 because 20th Century barely starts the 0s stuffs and the 2000-2009 are called the "Noughties" Era to not confused the two-thousands and the year 2000 also could be known as the "Thousands" Era. 2010-2019 era should be the "Tenties", the "Twenty-Tens" or the "Teenies". The decades should be in the ordinal articles instead of confusing with the 0s cardinal articles because of many people forgot them these days and 2000-2009 doesn't qualify as the first decade of the millennium, it is the the "Noughties" Era that were mainly been around in the 21st Century. Any Decade periods must be only contain by one century, not two.SonicTV64 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Decades

See WT:YEARS#0s for discussion of whether this quasi-article should be in Category:Decades. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This hurts if you are mathematically minded.

Following this logic there wasn't a first century either as it was only 99 years, nor a first millennium as it was only 999 years. Lerner (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I asked the writers of timeanddate.com about the existence of this 9-year decade, here's the response:

Reply went as follows:

As mentioned on https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/decade.html, we see decades whose name and scope are based on year numbers (e.g., the twenties), at least primarily, as a social and linguistic construct designed to enable people to categorize and talk about longer time spans. As such, we believe that these types of decades are indeed fairly flexible and it is not wrong as such to define "the twenties" as running from 2020 to 2029 although the 203rd decade begins in 2021.

​

By extension, we agree with Wikipedia here that it's not wrong to have a "decade" that lasts only 9 years (although, to be precise, it is of course wrong to call it a "decade").

Koopinator (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

On the pardoning of Gnaeus Cornelius Cinna Magnus

This article states that Gnaeus Cornelius Cinna Magnus was pardoned in AD 4. He was in fact pardoned around 16BC, during Augustus' abscence in Gaul. Both Seneca the Younger (De Clementia 1.9) and Cassius Dio (55.14-22) document the fable of his pardoning to occur at around this time. Even despite the sources, I find it hard to believe Augustus would allow Cinna to become consul in AD 5 if Cinna was planning to kill him the year prior. This information is incorrect. MyHeadHZ (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't actually from this article, rather from the AD 4 article which is parsed onto this one. Regardless, I have removed the information as it was uncited anyway. Koopinator (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. MyHeadHZ (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Merging year articles

The contents of AD 1 thru AD 9 are pretty much already transcluded into this article, so it's clearly possible to do so without the result being overly long. Given the sparse population at the time and few surviving documents, our coverage seems likely to stay that way.

There's some very enlightening context about the state of the world in the decade article, some of which is repeated in AD 1, and which is just missing from the other years. I think readers would have a better experience if these year articles were merged into the decade article, including getting more context and navigating less between articles. It would also reduce maintenance burden on editors.

I expect someone will raise the question of consistency with other decades, and yes, the same change might be useful for other decades...it looks like the earliest year article is 699 BC, and BC decades seem even more sparse than this one. Koopinator suggested starting a discussion for this decade because it has the highest number of page views in the 1st millennium; if we do this one, then we can see which others it might be appropriate to merge as well. -- Beland (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd suggest keeping the infobox from AD 1 to show conversion of this year into other calendars. It's not necessary to do so for every year in the decade, given that's easily figured out with some addition, but it a conversion table seems like a handy reference. -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Support This merge would address a valid WP:SIZE concern. The decade page is more extensive, so our readers would be better served if they were sent here. Koopinator (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't attribute the fact that the articles for the individual years are lacking in content solely due to the lack of documentation. They are quite poor articles in quality. There are glaring errors that are directly in contradiction with the articles about those subjects. The examples I have found are the part in the AD 1 article about Tiberius being ordered to quell revolts in Germania when Tiberius was famously in retirement at Rhodes during that time. The much less famous Marcus Vinicius was in command in Germania at the time it seems. The second error I found was in the AD 2 article with Gaius Caesar meeting with Phraates V, when both of their articles agree that that meeting and the peace treaty had already happened by 1 CE. There has also been twice that I have noticed in articles for years outside of the decade at hand where they gave the wrong link to the things they talked about. I fixed both of those instances, but I wouldn't doubt there are more similarly sloppy mistakes littered across these pages.

I think it is fully possible these pages could be filled out more to point that a lot of them can justify their own existence if someone took the time and effort to improve their quality. Although, with just how many of these articles there are, that might be too much to ask. Linaxt (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, while I was adding merge tags I noticed a lot of these articles are tagged as lacking in citations. The process of hunting down references results in removal of a lot of incorrect claims, so that may partly explain why they're in bad shape. Theoretically we could remove any unsourced content, and that would make these articles a lot shorter and even more merge-worthy. It's possible by-decade will also reduce errors by making it obvious if an item has a year that's off by one or something, when it shows up under two different years on the same page. I was expecting just to move the existing unsourced material, though, and make sure what's unverified is appropriately tagged.

If decade articles ever grow large enough to need splitting, they can always be made back into years, but if it takes many years to do that, I'm not sure there's much value leaving a bunch of small articles around in the meantime. It's also possible that not every event needs to be listed on these pages, that it would suffice to link to say, the article on a war that happened in a given decade, which covers the start, end, and notable events in between, along with resulting deaths. That sort of reorganization would keep the decade articles at a reasonable size without necessarily needing per-year articles, and it's easier to see throughlines that can be consolidated by looking at a per-decade scope. -- Beland (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)