Talk:2249: I Love the 20s - Revision history

172.71.242.189 at 15:29, 11 February 2024

2024-02-11T15:29:10Z

172.70.90.221 at 04:32, 10 December 2023

2023-12-10T04:32:55Z

162.158.74.68: Grrr...

2023-12-10T00:35:17Z

Grrr...

162.158.74.69: I should Preview more often

2023-12-10T00:34:25Z

I should Preview more often

162.158.74.69 at 00:33, 10 December 2023

2023-12-10T00:33:44Z

172.69.79.189 at 00:27, 10 December 2023

2023-12-10T00:27:39Z

Wilh3lm at 22:44, 9 December 2023

2023-12-09T22:44:23Z

172.70.86.59 at 12:36, 18 January 2023

2023-01-18T12:36:54Z

172.70.86.55 at 22:50, 17 January 2023

2023-01-17T22:50:31Z

Davidgro: Update on how the 20s are going.

2022-05-17T20:24:32Z

Update on how the 20s are going.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:29, 11 February 2024
Line 66:		Line 66:
	::Indeed. "Welcome to the 203rd Decade" would (at that time) be wrong, or at least questionable, much as the 21st Century and the 3rd Millenium did not start on 2000-01-01 (even whilst residual Y2K issues with current dates would have) but 2001-01-01.		::Indeed. "Welcome to the 203rd Decade" would (at that time) be wrong, or at least questionable, much as the 21st Century and the 3rd Millenium did not start on 2000-01-01 (even whilst residual Y2K issues with current dates would have) but 2001-01-01.
	::But I was happy enough to celebrate Y2K happening (and yet the bugs not, due in a relatively minute but otherwise real part of my own efforts in this regard over the years immediately beforehand) one year, then separately celebrate the New Millenium (with a lesser degree of nagging pensiveness and worry) the next. The one after it was ''just'' a New Year's celebration, as it might have been in in 1999 (well, maybe pallindromically interesting, but then again didn't have a 'party' song written especially about it). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.221\|172.70.90.221]] 04:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)		::But I was happy enough to celebrate Y2K happening (and yet the bugs not, due in a relatively minute but otherwise real part of my own efforts in this regard over the years immediately beforehand) one year, then separately celebrate the New Millenium (with a lesser degree of nagging pensiveness and worry) the next. The one after it was ''just'' a New Year's celebration, as it might have been in in 1999 (well, maybe pallindromically interesting, but then again didn't have a 'party' song written especially about it). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.221\|172.70.90.221]] 04:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	Couldn't quite fit enough explanation into the summary, of the latest revert (had to splice out most of the default info), but it looked like the editor was welded to 2021 being the start of the "202nd decade". For the record it would be 203rd. (First 1-10, Second 11-20, ...10th 91-100... ...100th 991-1000... 200th 1991-2000, 201st 2001-2010, 202nd 2011-2020, "Welcome to 2021, first year of the 203rd decade...").
		+	<br/>Not that really anybody but historians of the biblical era (NT, mainly, in low number AD/BC/CE/BCE times) uses Nth decade ''at all''. It's not even common to have "20th Decade (before/after)" references, though we used 20th Century, and currently 21st Century (displaced by 3rd Millenium, a bit, in ways that 22nd Century wouldn't be). Possibly we'd also completely grow out of Nth Century terminology for future times by the time N approached anything like 100, given the opportunity to still be discussing the new ones at all (or at least in recognisable cognates).
		+	<br />But up to five generations of people might well exist totally/significantly in just one century, to make it a static tropename, and two or three might even usefully the term in everyday speech to contrast with an adjacent one that they also experienced ("...it's the 512th Century, now, and I still can't get a scheduled FTL transport from here to Rigel. It's like it's still the 511th! I still have to charter a ship or else stop over at the Alpha Centauri transport hub then onwards to..." ), assuming lifespans/existences don't increase to multicentury levels and blur even those lines.
		+	<br/>...anyway, I didn't spot any overwhelmingly worthy differences (there was some rearranging done, which might have been Ok in itself but also made the "diff"s hard to check for, e.g., a punctuation correction now hidden in a sea of modification-highlighting). It looked like a bit of editing effort was made, but the mis-ordordinality and a couple of other things (like removal of a linefeed, without actually removing a second to meld the original two paragraphs together 'officially') made it look less than fully considered as to why to rewrite it at all. Original author will know what they intended and might be able to restore the edit whilst dealing with the stated problems (and checking for others). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.189\|172.71.242.189]] 15:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:32, 10 December 2023
Line 64:		Line 64:
	:<nowiki>*</nowiki> - or 1..99 in 'century speak' or 1..999 in 'millenium speak', like "the 2000s" can be ambiguously 2000-2009 (next in line being "the 2010s"), 2000-2099 (next being "the 2100s) or the whole of 2000-2999 (next up being "the 3000s"), depending on context, manner of speaking, intention and all kinds of other details.		:<nowiki>*</nowiki> - or 1..99 in 'century speak' or 1..999 in 'millenium speak', like "the 2000s" can be ambiguously 2000-2009 (next in line being "the 2010s"), 2000-2099 (next being "the 2100s) or the whole of 2000-2999 (next up being "the 3000s"), depending on context, manner of speaking, intention and all kinds of other details.
	:This is, of course, separate from the "first decade", "21st century", etc, which is "explicitly 10ⁿ years", but that's a demand from the ordinality of the number reference, which isn't actually asked of when it's a cardinality reference that merely says "all existing years that subscribe to this (fully qualified) pattern", which zero ''might'' belong to, if only it wasn't imaginary. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189\|172.69.79.189]] 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)		:This is, of course, separate from the "first decade", "21st century", etc, which is "explicitly 10ⁿ years", but that's a demand from the ordinality of the number reference, which isn't actually asked of when it's a cardinality reference that merely says "all existing years that subscribe to this (fully qualified) pattern", which zero ''might'' belong to, if only it wasn't imaginary. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189\|172.69.79.189]] 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
		+	::Indeed. "Welcome to the 203rd Decade" would (at that time) be wrong, or at least questionable, much as the 21st Century and the 3rd Millenium did not start on 2000-01-01 (even whilst residual Y2K issues with current dates would have) but 2001-01-01.
		+	::But I was happy enough to celebrate Y2K happening (and yet the bugs not, due in a relatively minute but otherwise real part of my own efforts in this regard over the years immediately beforehand) one year, then separately celebrate the New Millenium (with a lesser degree of nagging pensiveness and worry) the next. The one after it was ''just'' a New Year's celebration, as it might have been in in 1999 (well, maybe pallindromically interesting, but then again didn't have a 'party' song written especially about it). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.221\|172.70.90.221]] 04:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 :That only counts if you insist that the <foo>(ies/s/whatever) designation is a strict full decade. (Or a century or a millenium.) In this case the ''original'' "naughties/noughties/..." is years 1..9*, the original 10s will then be 10..19, etc. But the 'tens' can't include 9 to be 9-19 (or 2009-2019 where that's short for the "twenty-tens"), because 9 isn't in the 'tens' list. Instead, just accept that the zero-starting set is deficient by one (whatever order of years it encompasses), or that it all gets a bit complicated anyway when the apparent cue for the numbering system happened (if at all) between 6BC(E) and 4BC(E), and with no reason at all to be December the 25th as well.
 :<nowiki>*</nowiki> - or 1..99 in 'century speak' or 1..999 in 'millenium speak', like "the 2000s" can be ambiguously 2000-2009 (next in line being "the 2010s"), 2000-2099 (next being "the 2100s) or the whole of 2000-2999 (next up being "the 3000s"), depending on context, manner of speaking, intention and all kinds of other details.
-:This is, of course, separate from the "first decade", "22st century", etc, which is "explicitly 10ⁿ years", but that's a demand from the ordinality of the number reference, which isn't actually asked of when it's a cardinality reference that merely says "all existing years that subscribe to this (fully qualified) pattern", which zero ''might'' belong to, if only it wasn't imaginary. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189|172.69.79.189]] 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
+:This is, of course, separate from the "first decade", "21st century", etc, which is "explicitly 10ⁿ years", but that's a demand from the ordinality of the number reference, which isn't actually asked of when it's a cardinality reference that merely says "all existing years that subscribe to this (fully qualified) pattern", which zero ''might'' belong to, if only it wasn't imaginary. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189|172.69.79.189]] 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 For the record, White Hat is correct. There was no year 0. Therefore, the first decade was 1-10, so the next was 11-20, etc. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 22:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 :That only counts if you insist that the <foo>(ies/s/whatever) designation is a strict full decade. (Or a century or a millenium.) In this case the ''original'' "naughties/noughties/..." is years 1..9*, the original 10s will then be 10..19, etc. But the 'tens' can't include 9 to be 9-19 (or 2009-2019 where that's short for the "twenty-tens"), because 9 isn't in the 'tens' list. Instead, just accept that the zero-starting set is deficient by one (whatever order of years it encompasses), or that it all gets a bit complicated anyway when the apparent cue for the numbering system happened (if at all) between 6BC(E) and 4BC(E), and with no reason at all to be December the 25th as well.
-:* - or 1..99 in 'century speak' or 1..999 in 'millenium speak', like "the 2000s" can be ambiguously 2000-2009 (next in line being "the 2010s"), 2000-2099 (next being "the 2100s) or the whole of 2000-2999 (next up being "the 3000s"), depending on context, manner of speaking, intention and all kinds of other details.
+:<nowiki>*</nowiki> - or 1..99 in 'century speak' or 1..999 in 'millenium speak', like "the 2000s" can be ambiguously 2000-2009 (next in line being "the 2010s"), 2000-2099 (next being "the 2100s) or the whole of 2000-2999 (next up being "the 3000s"), depending on context, manner of speaking, intention and all kinds of other details.
 :This is, of course, separate from the "first decade", "22st century", etc, which is "explicitly 10ⁿ years", but that's a demand from the ordinality of the number reference, which isn't actually asked of when it's a cardinality reference that merely says "all existing years that subscribe to this (fully qualified) pattern", which zero ''might'' belong to, if only it wasn't imaginary. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189|172.69.79.189]] 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 :That only counts if you insist that the <foo>(ies/s/whatever) designation is a strict full decade. (Or a century or a millenium.) In this case the ''original'' "naughties/noughties/..." is years 1..9*, the original 10s will then be 10..19, etc. But the 'tens' can't include 9 to be 9-19 (or 2009-2019 where that's short for the "twenty-tens"), because 9 isn't in the 'tens' list. Instead, just accept that the zero-starting set is deficient by one (whatever order of years it encompasses), or that it all gets a bit complicated anyway when the apparent cue for the numbering system happened (if at all) between 6BC(E) and 4BC(E), and with no reason at all to be December the 25th as well.
 :* - or 1..99 in 'century speak' or 1..999 in 'millenium speak', like "the 2000s" can be ambiguously 2000-2009 (next in line being "the 2010s"), 2000-2099 (next being "the 2100s) or the whole of 2000-2999 (next up being "the 3000s"), depending on context, manner of speaking, intention and all kinds of other details.
-:[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189|172.69.79.189]] 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
+:This is, of course, separate from the "first decade", "22st century", etc, which is "explicitly 10ⁿ years", but that's a demand from the ordinality of the number reference, which isn't actually asked of when it's a cardinality reference that merely says "all existing years that subscribe to this (fully qualified) pattern", which zero ''might'' belong to, if only it wasn't imaginary. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189|172.69.79.189]] 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:27, 10 December 2023
Line 61:		Line 61:

	For the record, White Hat is correct. There was no year 0. Therefore, the first decade was 1-10, so the next was 11-20, etc. [[User:Wilh3lm\|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm\|talk]]) 22:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)		For the record, White Hat is correct. There was no year 0. Therefore, the first decade was 1-10, so the next was 11-20, etc. [[User:Wilh3lm\|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm\|talk]]) 22:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
		+	:That only counts if you insist that the <foo>(ies/s/whatever) designation is a strict full decade. (Or a century or a millenium.) In this case the ''original'' "naughties/noughties/..." is years 1..9*, the original 10s will then be 10..19, etc. But the 'tens' can't include 9 to be 9-19 (or 2009-2019 where that's short for the "twenty-tens"), because 9 isn't in the 'tens' list. Instead, just accept that the zero-starting set is deficient by one (whatever order of years it encompasses), or that it all gets a bit complicated anyway when the apparent cue for the numbering system happened (if at all) between 6BC(E) and 4BC(E), and with no reason at all to be December the 25th as well.
		+	:* - or 1..99 in 'century speak' or 1..999 in 'millenium speak', like "the 2000s" can be ambiguously 2000-2009 (next in line being "the 2010s"), 2000-2099 (next being "the 2100s) or the whole of 2000-2999 (next up being "the 3000s"), depending on context, manner of speaking, intention and all kinds of other details.
		+	:[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189\|172.69.79.189]] 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 9 December 2023
Line 59:		Line 59:
	:And only the 'modern history' folks might need to talk a lot about something like the "nineteen-ohs" (and "-tens/-twenties") in a way that ambiguity could have crept in to, these last few years, if omiting the "nineteen-" part.		:And only the 'modern history' folks might need to talk a lot about something like the "nineteen-ohs" (and "-tens/-twenties") in a way that ambiguity could have crept in to, these last few years, if omiting the "nineteen-" part.
	:By 2100, either there'll be other terms or living memory will shift the contextual window, but I don't expect to ever learn what happens myself. I may start to see which it goes by the time the 2060s need popular description. (Will they ''also'' be 'swinging'? I missed that last time round, just, and doubt I'll be part of the 'revival'...) But, if these words survive long enough to be read, I'll let those who have a good retrospective view on such future terminology have a good laugh at how wrong (or right?) my ideas are. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.59\|172.70.86.59]] 12:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)		:By 2100, either there'll be other terms or living memory will shift the contextual window, but I don't expect to ever learn what happens myself. I may start to see which it goes by the time the 2060s need popular description. (Will they ''also'' be 'swinging'? I missed that last time round, just, and doubt I'll be part of the 'revival'...) But, if these words survive long enough to be read, I'll let those who have a good retrospective view on such future terminology have a good laugh at how wrong (or right?) my ideas are. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.59\|172.70.86.59]] 12:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	For the record, White Hat is correct. There was no year 0. Therefore, the first decade was 1-10, so the next was 11-20, etc. [[User:Wilh3lm\|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm\|talk]]) 22:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:36, 18 January 2023
Line 55:		Line 55:

	N.B.: Over here in the most right proper honourable land of the United Kingdom, we call the 2000s decade the 'Noughties'. It caught on OK in these great, green and pleasant lands. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.55\|172.70.86.55]] 22:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)		N.B.: Over here in the most right proper honourable land of the United Kingdom, we call the 2000s decade the 'Noughties'. It caught on OK in these great, green and pleasant lands. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.55\|172.70.86.55]] 22:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
		+	:Also "the 2000s" has ambiguity. Is that 200x (as in "the 1990s" being 199x), 20xx (as in "the 1900s" often being taken as 19xx, being the 20usup>th</sup>C except for the single-year borrow/lend at each end) or even 2xxx (as opposed to 1000-1999's 'nearly the second millenium' predecessor).
		+	:"The naughties"/similar has a similar potential for ''which'' length of zeros (or which run of them; conceivably "000x", "00xx", "0xxx"... or even "0(x+),xxx" once that also becomes a potential matter of general hindsight), except that it is so infrequently applied prior to the current era (a smattering of 19xx usage), or for the century/millenium not yet even usefully part way through that so far it's not really necessary even if the ordinal C/M wasn't already probably as usabld already. So, for us, right now, it's as good a shot cut as it needs to be.
		+	:And only the 'modern history' folks might need to talk a lot about something like the "nineteen-ohs" (and "-tens/-twenties") in a way that ambiguity could have crept in to, these last few years, if omiting the "nineteen-" part.
		+	:By 2100, either there'll be other terms or living memory will shift the contextual window, but I don't expect to ever learn what happens myself. I may start to see which it goes by the time the 2060s need popular description. (Will they ''also'' be 'swinging'? I missed that last time round, just, and doubt I'll be part of the 'revival'...) But, if these words survive long enough to be read, I'll let those who have a good retrospective view on such future terminology have a good laugh at how wrong (or right?) my ideas are. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.59\|172.70.86.59]] 12:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 17 January 2023
Line 53:		Line 53:

	2 years later future context update: Nobody loves the 20s. And culturally (in the US) they started around 2020-03-20 when everything first locked down. [[User:Davidgro\|davidgro]] ([[User talk:Davidgro\|talk]]) 20:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)		2 years later future context update: Nobody loves the 20s. And culturally (in the US) they started around 2020-03-20 when everything first locked down. [[User:Davidgro\|davidgro]] ([[User talk:Davidgro\|talk]]) 20:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	N.B.: Over here in the most right proper honourable land of the United Kingdom, we call the 2000s decade the 'Noughties'. It caught on OK in these great, green and pleasant lands. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.55\|172.70.86.55]] 22:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:24, 17 May 2022
Line 51:		Line 51:
	White Hat is engaging in '''hypercorrection''', one of the worst crimes of the pseudo-intellectual. They learn something but don't understand it, and then overcompensate by applying it too broadly. Grammar is one of their biggest failings. For example, you do ''not'' add -ly to every adjective that's simply placed near a verb. You feel bad, not badly. And while one does not end a clause with a preposition, "prepositions" like "in" and "with" are often not prepositions at all, but particles that serve a utility role and are valid at the end of a sentence. — [[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 16:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)		White Hat is engaging in '''hypercorrection''', one of the worst crimes of the pseudo-intellectual. They learn something but don't understand it, and then overcompensate by applying it too broadly. Grammar is one of their biggest failings. For example, you do ''not'' add -ly to every adjective that's simply placed near a verb. You feel bad, not badly. And while one does not end a clause with a preposition, "prepositions" like "in" and "with" are often not prepositions at all, but particles that serve a utility role and are valid at the end of a sentence. — [[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 16:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
	:I have no idea what your comment invokes inside me. I feel badly. --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 07:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)		:I have no idea what your comment invokes inside me. I feel badly. --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 07:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	2 years later future context update: Nobody loves the 20s. And culturally (in the US) they started around 2020-03-20 when everything first locked down. [[User:Davidgro\|davidgro]] ([[User talk:Davidgro\|talk]]) 20:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)