Talk:Decade

message: Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara 11:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: In the Netherlands, a decade means 10 days, and a decennium means 10 years. The Dutch Wikipage says that a decade meaning 10 years, is in fact wrong. What is the true meaning of ab decade, and who is right? --Robster1983 16:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "true meaning" when talking about words in different languages. In Norwegian, hat means hatred but in Hungarian, hat is the numeral 6 (:wikt:hat). Which one is the true meaning? Perhaps they are both wrong and the true meaning of hat is a covering for the head? If you want to find out what the Dutch word decade means, I guess a Dutch dictionary would be the place to start, not the English Wikipedia. --Jmk (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 days or 10 years? 

message: decade means that somebody is lower in something than somebody else  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.177.110 (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  decade 

message: Editors (or perhaps one editor) under different IPs keep confusing the article and pushing   the idea that an ordinal reference would be the "proper" way of counting decades, and that e.g. the 1960s would include the year 1970 (definite nonsense), apparently against the consensus reached on this talk page. They do not seem to be interested in joining the discussion here, however. It might be deliberate vandalism, or perhaps simple neglect of common editing practices. Either way, perhaps this article should be semi-protected, to encourage those editors to raise their issues on the talk page instead of edit-warring. --Jmk (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect? 

message: 'For example, the decade commonly referred to as the "two thousands" ended on December 31, 2009.'
Who calls it this? All I ever see used is "the noughties". Graspee (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it commonly referred to as anything in particular.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I removed the sentence.  It doesn't seem to add anything.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Some people call the decade 2000-2009 the twenty-ohohs. However, the first decade of the 21st century is supposed to be counted as the years 2001 to 2010, and not 2000 to 2009, as a decade always after a multiple of ten years, just as a century shall be counted as a period which ends after a multiple of one hundred years. 212.100.101.104 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "two thousands" ? 

message: The lead paragraph includes:
:This etymology is sometime confused with the Latin decas (ten) and dies (days), which is not correct.Larousse, etymology of decade
Problems: 1. The reference is to a French dictionary, which is not appropriate for the etymology of an English word.  2. The French dictionary says the word derives from Latin (which in turn derived from Greek).
dictionary.com says the English word derives from French, via Latin and Greek.  So I am changing the lead paragraph to reflect this.UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Not a native speaker, I was looking here to understand if 1929-1930 were the turn of the twenties or of the thirties... not found. I think this is much more important than the dispute 0-9 or 1-10. If one speaks of decades, he is not up to mathematical precision, so that it does not really matter; otherwise one tells the exact range explicitly. --Esagherardo (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Little late, but here goes. In English, the "turn of" phrasing refers to the period being entered. "The turn of the 20th century" was the transition into said century. Thus, 1929-1930 would be the "turn of the '30s". However, no one actually talks about things like that. We speak of "turn of the century" and "turn of the millennium", but not "turn of the decade". An expression such as "dawn of the '60s" is much more common. (And, in turn, is not used for centuries and millennia.) --Khajidha (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  turn of decade? 

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Century#RFC: Are August 2019 edits in accord with March 2019 RFC above? about whether centuries and decades begin in years who's last two digits are "00" or in years who's last two digits are "01". Jc3s5h (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Closely related RFC on "Century" talk page

message: Does the 1st decade of the 21st century (as an example) last till 2010 (but not longer), or till 2011 (but not longer)?--130.228.4.61 (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider it used often enough to be well-defined.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  @ 130.228.4.61 Because of differing opinions over when calendar decades, centuries and millennia begin and end, the meaning of expressions such as "first decade", "second decade", and so on is disputed. See the current discussion at Talk:Century#RFC: Are August 2019 edits in accord with March 2019 RFC above? Blurryman (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the section ‘0 to 9 or 1 to 0?’ above is related to this.--130.228.4.61 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A standard decade in the Gregorian calendar. 

message: I don't see a consensus in favor of the invisible comment; per Wikipedia guidelines, it should be deleted.  I'm not going to do it; fighting for an invisible comment which actually had consensus is one of the things that got me desysoped.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible comment 

message: Request to remove this assertion;
"Particularly in the 20th century, a nominal decade is sometimes used to refer not just to a set of ten years but rather to a period of about ten years – for example, the phrase the sixties often refers to events that took place between around 1964 and 1972"
There's no support at the provided citation which supports this. It's a book review, of a book that discusses anecdotes about culture covering a certain era. It isn't an authoritative source on this subject, nor does it support that this is common usage. 'Sometimes' is also arguably WP:WEASEL. The book referred to there states "Personally as someone who lived through the Sixties - a time I count as beginning with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and ending with the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 - I have many personal memories of that turbulent, exhilarating, depressing, moving, maddening time that simply do not come together in a tidy package of conclusions", making it clear this is a personal demarcation, rather than an assertion about what the term 'The 60s' means.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request.  

message: Is it appropriate that the lead section goes off on a tangent about other words for spans of years with a similar etymological basis? According to MOS:LEAD it should be an introduction to and summary about the most important content of the article. That is, about the subject of the article, and that tangent doesn't seem to be directly about decades per se, and the fact that they also come from Latin is really significant afaics. Seems more suited to see also section, where century and millennium already are linked, though the shorter periods are not very commonly used terms so whether they even need to be is questionable too.Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: This is about the comparison table last seen in revision 945780415.
@WildEric19: In response to "We came in agreement a long time ago that we don't need this table." (diff), I'm sorry but I've been unable to find a statement on this talk page about problems this visual aid would create. I'd appreciate if you could help me find this agreement, or rather the reasons behind it? I assume it is not the general concept of a visualisation that is in disputation, but rather a problem with the specific information I made available in this table?
The only thing I was able to find in relation to the table was someone saying its useful, and various arguments about the label "Nth decade of …". These labels were no longer present. And apart from the table and its label, I believe this was adequately addressed on 9 February 2020 ("millions of citations").
Thanks! --Krinkle (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Frond Dishlock, Blurryman, Jc3s5h: Apologies for the direct pings. It looks looks like WildEric and Oldstone James are both no longer active on the wiki (for unrelated reasons). I'd appreciate your perpectives on the above. I'd be happy to learn about something I may've missed. I don't want to step on any toes. Thank you, --Krinkle (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Krinkle Sorry for the delay in replying. I would support the insertion of the table in the form you last used, before it was undone by WildEric19. I have been following this article for some time, and I am not aware of any specific discussion or agreement about its inclusion, and I was rather surprised when your edit of 16 March 2020 was reversed by WildEric19 (who has now resigned from Wikipedia) because it was he who originally introduced such a table here. From memory, I believe it was later arbitrarily deleted and reinserted a few times, without any discussion, during the flurry of edits at the beginning of this year. --Blurryman (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Any element that makes articles unusually wide make them more difficult to navigate. I don't think the table is worth the hassle the unusual width creates. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual aid 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Decade (redirect). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Decade (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Decade (redirect)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The graph titled "Usage methods compared" seems to be very messy and confusing. Shouldn't it just look like the following? Peter J. Yost (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I hadn't understood the graph correctly. Peter J. Yost (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

text: No, Peter. The 1-to-0 decade was correct, because I once believed that a decade could start for example, 2010, but it actually didn't start until 2011, a year later. So it made me realize how dumb-minded I felt. Now we can finally agree to disagree that a decade isn't until the number one like millenniums or centuries. You did pretty good. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 01:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Usage methods compared" graph is messy. 

message: The word "ordinal" was added in this edit. I have removed it because the word "ordinal" applies to things that are fundamentally ordered, while "cardinal" are used for counting things that have no inherent order. Thus, all dates are ordinal, no matter whether the count begins at 0 or 1, and no mater whether suffixes like -st, -rd, or -th are used. Hence it is inappropriate to use the word "ordinal" to differentiate between the two numbering systems. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "ordinal"