Talk:3rd millennium/Archive 1

message: Jesus Christ undoubtedly existed, and His birthdate was about 4–8 B.C.. Rewording this paragraph. I have also removed the part about the third millennium BC, as it is irrelevant.
—Wereon 20:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can we have a picture like with the other millenias?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.2.70 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: It was widely publisised that the "Second" millennium ended on December 31st 1999. And we all know that the "Last" millennium ended 6 days after "Jesus Christ" was born... 1 B.C. So then on A.D. 0 on the first day of the year the "First" millennium came into contact with reality. QED
(Further proof our educational system is lacking.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.229.212 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 31st 1999 

message: This article has for some time implied that the Common Era system contains a Year 0, making it sensible to view the 3rd Millennium as starting on 1 January 2000, not 1 January 2001, if you use the Common Era system.  An external link to an article by Peter Meyer has been supplied to justify this point.
It may be that Mr. Meyer is the only one who views the Common Era system this way.  The other authorities I can find, including Wikipedia's own article on the topic, all maintain that 1 CE was immediately preceded by 1 BCE, and that (N) BC = (N) BCE, not (N-1) BCE. The original hyperlink to the Common Era article, therefore, refuted the very assertion it was included to support.
The astronomical year numbering system does include a Year 0, and for very good reason, because it's a system of time measurement, not a system of year counting. So the 3rd Millennium of the era beginning with astronomical Year 0 does begin on 1 January 2000. I have edited the article to reflect this and eliminate a misconception about the Common Era system.
:The year 0 is either considered not a part of any millenium, or a part of the first millenium BCE (since year 0 CE is the same as year 1 BC). I have updated the article accordingly.
Those who want to debate this issue are directed to the talk pages for Common Era and Year 0, where various people have tried to find support for the concept of the year 0 CE, with little success except Peter Meyer's article.  --Sharpner 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE/CE vs. astronomical systems: confusion about Year 0 

message: I clicked on "3rd Millennium" to see what it would say about 65% of the world's population seeing it as a time of transition before the end of the world, and there was one line, saying "some millennialists and anarchists believe..."  I'm sorry, but anyone who believes the Bible or the Torah or the Koran, even those who take them as 90% metaphor, generally believe that the history of man's consciousness on earth started "around" 4000 BC and will last 7000 years, with the Messiah, whoever he is, returning at the beginning of the 7th millennium, i.e. somewhere "around" 2000 BC.  And IslamoJudaeoChristianity covers 70% of the population of the earth!  That surely deserves more than a passing sarcastic reference.  --Mrcolj 13:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a nut.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.2.32 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but you're overstating the prevalence of this belief within these religions -- or at least within Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who don't necessarily believe that the 3rd millennium is when this transition will occur. Jesus himself was pretty explicit that the time cannot and should not be identified or predicted: See Matthew 24:36. --Sharpner 05:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The entire history of IslamoJudaeoChristianity is relegated to the term Millennialists?! 

message: Note to the several editors who have tried to insert this inaccuracy in the article from time to time: the endpoints of the millennia do not change depending on whether you use the Gregorian Calendar or the "Common Era Calendar." Actually there is no such thing as a "Common Era Calendar." The Common Era is not a calendar but a calendar era, and the Gregorian Calendar actually uses it. Also -- see discussion above -- there is no Year 0 in the Common Era, so you don't get to claim that the "3rd Millennium" spans 2000-2999 provided you use this so-called "Common Era Calendar."
The years 2000 through 2999 do constitute a millennium, which you can call the "2000s" if you want. (You can even call it the "current millennium," as long as you recognize that the current millennium is any period of 1000 consecutive years that includes the present moment, including, for example, the one that started with April 1, 1657 and will end with March 31, 2657.) Just don't call it the "3rd Millennium" without further elaboration, because people will assume it's the 3rd millennium of some period they're interested in or familiar with. 2000-2999 is the 3rd millennium of the period that began on January 1, 1 BCE whether you reckon with the Gregorian Calendar, the Common Era, or (as everyone does these days) both. The problem is that most people will assume you mean the period that began on January 1, 1 CE. --Sharpner 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregorian Calendar vs. "Common Era Calendar" 

message: This article is contradicted by an article it has a link to. It lists the decades in the 3rd millennium as:
21st century 	2000s 	2010s 	2020s 	2030s 	2040s 	2050s 	2060s 	2070s 	2080s 	2090s
But, in the article for 2000s, it says that it is the decade that spans from 1-Jan-2000 to 31-Dec-2009.
That is a contradiction with this article that says that the 3rd millennium starts on 1-Jan-2001, not 2000.
So, which is it? 2001 or 2000? If it's 2001, then the article for 2000s should be changed to note the decade is from 2001 to 2010.
Ciderbarrel (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  The 2000s is mostly in the 3rd millennium and the 21st century.  No contradiction.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is using the word 'nonsense' to mean 'correct'? The decade and the millenium started on 1 January 2001. If you struggle with that, try learning to count. Sam1930 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still nonsense, and not correct, as you should know by now.  The 2000s started on 1 January 2000.  The 201st decade of the Common Era would start on 1 January 2001, if anyone used that terminology.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not a macro/template expert.   transcludes  which transcludes , none of which are used anywhere else.  There's probably a way to handle it using arithmetic operations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I see two solutions:
Change :Template:ld from
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
and the corresponding changes to :Template:l2d and :Template:l3d, or replace the last change in :Template:ld by an arithmetic calculation, with no change to l2d and l3d.  I don't know if it's worth the trouble.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed list of years, although it may be lousy code.  I chose the first option, with checking whether the second parameter is present.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction  

message: Now that "the historian" has a wee bit of the 2010s decade to study, I think I'm going to add that to this page. Feel free to change if you have any objections.
SenorCrunchy (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Years for study

message: I was talking about the beginning of the apocalypse, not the end. Therefore, I am indeed right. I will make my edit again after 24 hours. 88.109.29.126 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before making any edits to Wikipedia. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

text: The source you cited does not state that the third millenium ended yesterday. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding my edit. 

message: The expectations are not 'popular' in the sense of widely expected - the references cannot show that. If it was about specific predictions then there might be a place for it. But it's not even that. As it is, the section comprises science-fiction-type that some people think might become reality during the third millennium. Not really focused enough for Wikipedia. Therefore I've removed the 'Popular expectations' section. asnac (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular expectations? 

message: I removed mention of the Holocene Era on the basis of it not being notable enough to merit inclusion. One justification for this view is page B4 of the Astronomical Almanac for the year 2011 which lists the date in 2011 when each of ten eras begin a stated year, but Holocene Era is not mentioned. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed mention of Holocene Era

message: I reverted the edit that explained the disagreement on what year the millennium began. Almost every millennium and century is has that exact same disagreement of on what year it began, but the overwhelming majority of other articles don't include that explanation (e.g. 25th century, 21st century, 1st millennium). I wouldn't necessarily object to giving a brief expiation of this disagreement on these articles, but per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS we shouldn't single out this article unless there's some compelling reason to treat if differently from the others. If there's not some reason to treat this differently, I would suggest starting an WP:RFC on these types of articles, and informing WikiProjects Time and Years. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has begun but you didn't bother to find it. Reverting. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea there was already a discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Ah, I somehow missed the "First year of 3rd millennium" section above. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion began above, but has been centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#When do centuries and millennia begin? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What year the millennium began 

message: I am not part of this WikiProject (maybe I will soon) but I just wanted to help. Just asking should we add in the Timeline of Events section the 2008 Global Recession? Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's notable enough for an article about the entire millennium. Maybe ask on 2000s (decade), the section of economics over there leaves something to be desired regarding the recession.  Elassint Hi 00:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Global Recession? 

message: I would suggest it's much too early to include Malcolm Turnbull in the list of significant people of this century. In fact, I'm not sure why Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard even qualify, either. They haven't had any notable international impact, and only a limited domestic impact. In ten or twenty years' time, will anyone see the Rudd-Gillard years as "notable"? Really, within Oceania, I would suggest that Voreqe Bainimarama is a more significant figure than either Rudd or Gillard, both on a domestic and international level… (ʻAkilisi Pohiva is also arguably more notable than Rudd or Gillard, though I wouldn't include him either.)
I'd say it's also too early to include Narendra Modi, though he certainly has the potential to be an important figure. As for David Cameron, I assume he's included because of the possible continental consequences of his current premiership? Otherwise, Tony Blair strikes me as a more significant figure for inclusion than Cameron. Aridd (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant people of the 21st century 

message: It is false (to put it mildly) to claim that say Austria (to pick a country at random) is a "separate civilisation" from the rest of Europe — now or in the rest of the millennium!----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate civilisations 

message: This page was recently brought up in a reddit post, and it looks like some people have decided it would be fun to start changing the page. It's fairly minor, but do watch out. Lukeroge (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got some vandalism coming in. 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1st millennium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Why is the #Events section almost completely occupied by crimes? Surely we can do find some other events to add. Dustin (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events 

message: Even if that image is appropriately licensed, Mark doesn't deserve a featured position.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Why does this article use the date format which is only used in the US? For an article which is relevant to the whole world, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the most widely used format? Blurryman (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article has no particular strong national WP:TIES to any one nation, the type of date format (and variety of English) was totally up to the discretion of the creating editors. This article is very old, 19 years old to be exact. A very early revision of the article already depicts the mdy date format. I am comfortable with retaining that date format, due to no national ties and no compelling rationale to change it. Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#2020s_page_merges. -- Beland (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020s page merges 

message: 92.238.40.26 (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021 

message: Are these time-series articles subject to a more lax standard for referencing and verifiability? The list of predictions seems indiscriminate and is mostly un-referenced. Is there a reason the un-referenced material shouldn't be removed? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the un-referenced material from this article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Prediction References

message: was concerned about the maintenance burden of this article and the need to constantly remove fictional entries. After the recent merge fest, it does indeed seem to continue to suffer from that problem, as well as IP addresses and new accounts making content and style changes that get reverted, sometimes multiple times without eliciting any discussion from the drive-by accounts. I'm going to try semi-protecting this article to see if that helps. If you have an objection or think it's not working out for the best, feel free to ping me. -- Beland (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: 47.145.180.37 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021 

message: I think the "January 1 xxxx - Assuming no extensions to copyright guidelines, blah blah blah will enter the public domain." is kind of just clogging up space. Notices that mention works like Disney's animation Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs should remain there, but if you can't find a work that was made in a specific year, then does there really need to be a line saying that? And, I have rights to edit the document but I don't want to just barge in and delete all the lines except for the notices with works that can be thought of, so just making sure I have some agreement. You may say "Maybe somebody knows something that was produced in that year even when we can't think of one off the top of our head, it's important to them!" You may be correct, but if they really cared about that, they could probably just search it up, couldn't they? I know it's a weak argument and all, but can we not have 100 lines of pretty worthless information of the same copy pasted statement? i guess i get if people don't want to do that, but is there a way to reduce the sheer amount of overflowing information off of this page?  JameezWiki (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant copyright notices 

message: Up until 2044, works will enter the public domain at the start of the year of their 96th birthday. This article says that this sequence will stop in 2044. Why?? What will happen to 1948 works?? Will some 1948 works remain copyrighted?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For the United States, I don't think that's entirely correct, but it also depends on the type of work. The "why" is "because that's the time limit set by Congress", which is occasionally changed by passing new laws (sometimes retroactive) usually after a fair amount of lobbying by copyright holders and objections from public domain advocates. There's a ton of details at Public domain in the United States. -- Beland (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain rule 

message: Should the 'falcon heavy' 'falcon 9' or 'reusable rockets' be added to the list of notable technology or the 'space exploration'. While it is entirely possible that the space exploration of the 3rd millennium could include everything up to 'interstellar flight', should not these notable rockets be included since they are the first widely used reusable rockets that have been developed by a private company?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.175.246 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Reusable launch systems were invented in the 2nd millennium. SpaceX is already mentioned at 21st century#Space exploration, though perhaps commercialization achievements could be more explicitly mentioned there. -- Beland (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falcon Heavy/Space X 

message: There are various "anniversaries" of historical events, which should not be there -- these would spur editors from countries all around the world to add in "anniversaries" that are not globally notable. NoNews! 07:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: From a quick glance at the article, I agree. Feel free to remove these trivial "anniversaries". (WP:BOLD). Blurryman (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, except for those mentioned in reference to time capsule openings. -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "anniversaries" 

message: United Arab Emirates have official plan(similar to NASA), about making a settlement on Mars. It is covered by state money, and probably notable(as notable are NASA missions, and usually are on Wikipedia). Planned date is up to 2117.https://nt.interia.pl/raporty/raport-kosmos/informacje/news-emiracka-sonda-kosmiczna-weszla-na-orbite-marsa,nId,5041096  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.32.136 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting development! Given the large uncertainty in timing and whether or not this would actually happen, I decided not to list that here (any far-future NASA plans aren't listed either) but I did add a mention to Colonization of Mars. -- Beland (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement on the Mars 

message: I have started taking the customer data from over 25 years in business, mostly from the plaques we have done for customers that indicate their planned openings for time capsules. How do I properly cite our own original sources so that all the time and effort expended on listing this information is not deleted? In many cases I can indicate the size of time capsule as well as the opening of them. This section reminds me of a tickler file in the sense that the International Time Capsule Society already does in-house. But much of the information I have is valid although I do not know how you would like it to be verified.Capsulegal (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Source material must be published so that it can be verified by other editors. The how-to guide for citations is Wikipedia:Citing sources. There are restrictions on self-published sources; for those see WP:RSSELF. If you are thinking about adding information supported by sources published by you or an organization you are affiliated with, you will probably need to post requests to do so on talk pages instead, and you should disclose your connection to the source; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Time capsule citations

message: I have filed a few discussions at RfD to address the redirects that target the currently empty section on the 26th century. The discussions are at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 26th century redirects are listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: But sources said, the polar bears are becoming extinct by 2100, due to loss of habitat. According to these multiple sources:   49.150.116.127 (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 07:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021 

message: It's noted within the article that UNIX time = 2000000 on Wed May 18 2033 03:33:20 GMT+0000
Should we also add for completion, when this time reaches 3 and 4 million on;
Sat Jan 24 2065 05:20:00 GMT+0000
Tue Oct 02 2096 07:06:40 GMT+0000
respectively?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.237.2 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note when UNIX time = 3m and 4m? 

message: Make the section 23rd Century look like -
* 2239: Year 6000 of the Jewish Calendar. 
* 2227–2247: Pluto will be closer to the Sun than Neptune is for the first time since the year 1999.
* 2265: Return of the Great Comet of 1861.
* 2284: Possible the perihelion of Halley's Comet might come back after the year 2209.
* 2285: On March 22, Easter will occur on its earliest possible date for the first time since the year 1818.177.208.144.127 (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I see no such "Year n-thousand" or similar calendar specific entries; it doesn't appear suitable. No source was given as well. Note: I slightly reworded IP's request so that sections remain together. --Hemanthah (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021 

message: I removed this patently wrong assertion but my edit has been inexplicably reverted. Aside from the fact that the "British monarchy" only dates to 1707 (or arguably 1603, when James VI and I became King of England), 1077 was not a significant date in the history of the English or Scottish crowns. I can only presume that the "anniversary" is based on a starting date of 1066 and excluding the 11-year interregnum. The problem: William I was King of England, and he was not even the first king of England. In short, this entry needs to be removed as it is not factual. --Hazhk (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removal unless clear sourcing can be provided. I think we would need a source that specifically says 2077 is the 1000th anniversary; it would be original research for us to decide to add 11 years for the interregnum. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal. The statement's wording is also problematical in that it is conditional upon the monarchy's survival until that date, something which is not guaranteed. --Blurryman (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "2077: The British Monarchy will turn 1,000 years old"? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :2887 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#2887 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  KylieTastic (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "2887" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 2112:  Queen Elizabeth's will to be public knowledge 2600:1700:88B6:52F:ADFA:1A22:961:538D (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022 

message: Change the years to 2000-3000 2600:1011:B194:85C2:A8AB:F856:7D02:65F7 (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. See previous discussion on this page.  RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022 

message: I get that it's talking about 3000AD but are many English speakers going to be confused what callendar system is in use?
Also 3000AD might be fine?
Maybe pad it out with some of the methods of how these predictions are made, and how they are able to be certain of certain parts / timelines. Jaybest (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone find the intro a little clunky? 

message: Under 22nd century redirections it is written that: " the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II (which happened at 21:37)". It was not the assasination attempt that happened at that hour, but instead it was his death in 2005. 91.123.181.237 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the unsourced claim. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023