Talk:0s

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Ostalk" ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Page move?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I have now removed this statement. 213.114.157.166 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First decade

message: 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)
thread_title:  Experimental transclusion / formatting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Decades]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This hurts if you are mathematically minded. 

message: Reply went as follows:
Koopinator (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I asked the writers of timeanddate.com about the existence of this 9-year decade, here's the response: 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. MyHeadHZ (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the pardoning of Gnaeus Cornelius Cinna Magnus