Talk:AD 1000

Years Mid‑importance

	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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 7 August 2019, it was proposed that this article be moved from 1000 to AD 1000. The result of the discussion was Moved.

1

I've inserted a weasel word notice for the line "are considered among the greatest scientists in history." Hasta luego --TParis23 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i hae deleted the castille part of king sancho's becoming ruler because he doesn't come to rule castille for several decades

Is the entry about the video game appropriate in the Events section?Adzze 22:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe so - a commerical link, I'll remove it --Nickj69 11:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entry about gunpowder being invented in China in 1000 is wrong. It was invented long before that. See the Wikipedia section on Gunpower. Thanks Tedcoombs 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Tedcoombs[reply]

Editing

  Hello
 
  The information published about Afghanistan have the reality 
  , what seem to be edited is to change the format of your site for further accessing through search MENU inorder to find Countries with its initiatves and so on .

  Accept my best compliment.

   your sincerely
      shams

tʃ[[

File:0960677264

⟨⟩]]

Leap Year Status

The article states that the year 1000 was a leap year, but according to the way leap years are "calculated" they don't occur on years that are divisible by 100 and not by 400. Therefore, the year 1000 was not a leap year.(See the article Leap Year.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhenry (talk • contribs) 06:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC) --Jdhenry 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)--Jdhenry 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leap year was 400, 800, 1200 etc. but not 900, 1100 and actually - 1000th year Metufit (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1000 was a leap year in the Julian calendar. It would not have been a leap year in the Gregorian calendar, but that was not yet in use. Certes (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamicworld expands?

Whilst Byzantium grinds her walls to dust and smashes her armies aside?Tourskin (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring the article

@Dbachmann: The page 1000s (decade) is created automatically from 1000, 1001 and so on. Until yesterday, the middle portion of each of these articles had a similar set of headings and a similar style, so that the "decade" page worked. Yesterday's rewrite has upset this arrangement.

I've added <onlyinclude> tags to fix the red error messages at the bottom of 1000s (decade). -- John of Reading (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1000 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1000 (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft:Year 1 kilo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Draft:Year 1 kilo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 20#Draft:Year 1 kilo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of first paragraph, after the introduction......

End of first paragraph, after the introduction it says:

"as well as the last year of the 1st millennium of the Christian Era ending on December 31, but the first year of the 1000s decade. Should that in this context not be: "as well as the last year of the 1st millennium of the Christian Era ending on December 31, and the first year of the 1000s decade." ? Language wise

And i thought logically speaking 999 would be the last year of the first millennium. So maybe, someone? G Wijnsma (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author is trying to show the contrast between millennia, which end in AD x000, and the x000s, which start in x000. A millennium is 1000 years. If its last year were AD 999, its first would be 1 BC, which seems a less useful and less commonly used range than AD 1–1000. Certes (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]