Talk:2000s: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: Of course it ended in December 2009. I thought that was common sense. How is 2010 in any way part of the decade called the 2000s? This isn't like centuries and millennia where it's up in the air whether the 20th century ends in 1999 or 2000, now, is it? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 09:55, October 9, 2011 (UTC) | : Of course it ended in December 2009. I thought that was common sense. How is 2010 in any way part of the decade called the 2000s? This isn't like centuries and millennia where it's up in the air whether the 20th century ends in 1999 or 2000, now, is it? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 09:55, October 9, 2011 (UTC) | ||
: Where douse it say that starting on 1 douse not generally apply for decades? | : Where douse it say that starting on 1 instead of 0 douse not generally apply for decades? {{Template:Unsigned-anon|203.206.89.251}} | ||
: Again, common sense. Unless you meant January 1st 2010 at midnight, this is just ridiculous. Well, I suppose if you want some proof, the way automated timeline pages work, [[2010]] is very clearly categorised (at the bottom) as the "[[:Category:2010s|2010s]]", not the "[[:Category:2000s|2000s]]". -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 12:17, October 9, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:17, 9 October 2011
I tried to add some of the events from 2010 since 2010 was technically part of the 00s but they where deleated due to a mathematical disagreement that the 00s ended in 2009. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.89.251 (talk).
- Of course it ended in December 2009. I thought that was common sense. How is 2010 in any way part of the decade called the 2000s? This isn't like centuries and millennia where it's up in the air whether the 20th century ends in 1999 or 2000, now, is it? -- Tybort (talk page) 09:55, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Where douse it say that starting on 1 instead of 0 douse not generally apply for decades? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.89.251 (talk).
- Again, common sense. Unless you meant January 1st 2010 at midnight, this is just ridiculous. Well, I suppose if you want some proof, the way automated timeline pages work, 2010 is very clearly categorised (at the bottom) as the "2010s", not the "2000s". -- Tybort (talk page) 12:17, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
