Talk:0s

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)

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...

---

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)
99	100	10th	1st (ends)	1st (continues)
999	1000	100th	10th (ends)	1st (ends)
1999	2000	200th	20th (ends)	2nd (ends)
2001	2010	201th	21th (starts)	3rd (starts)

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.

(User talk:SonicTV64) March 5, 2016 The first method of the decade in my opinion as if it is 1996s then it became 1996-2006, you cannot say 0s. So 1s are barely 1-11 AD. The second one I use is the year X for numbers to put from 0 to 9 like 192X meaning 1920-1029. 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 180th 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 1990-2000 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)