Talk:2000s/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Sub-Headings

I think this page should be broken into different subheadings as the current article is a bit to long at the moment. Pro66 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay now? Unschool (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it brief

One of the unfortunate side effects of archiving talk pages is that sometimes, you end up having to explain things all over again. Well, in the 40 pages (as it appears on my computer, using Microsoft Word, Times New Roman 12 pt. font) of archived discussion on this article, the vast majority of it was spent talking about the monstrosity that this article had become. It was realized by nearly all editors that this article had been written prematurely, that, without the perspective that comes from looking back upon a decade that is over, it is essentially impossible to determine what is significant enough to include. As a result, everyone was including everything.

The article got cut down to size, was provided some (non-headlined) organization, and remained stable with only minor changes for a year. But now that the talk page has been archived, the article is now headed down the same path that caused it to be what many considered to literally be the single worst article in Wikipedia. I am therefore reverting most of the well-intentioned edits that, left alone, will begin the path to chaos and anarchy.

If you really object to this, I strongly urge you to read the entirety of the archived talk pages, especially archive 2. Also, take a look at the article when it looked like this, and ask yourself if this really bore any resemblance at all to an encyclopedia article. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Other notable topics

• In the U.S. and western world, the decline in living standards, economic growth stagnation, financial insecurity, job outsourcing, and social concerns on living costs, such as the average cost of gasoline per gallon.
• Liberalisation of Cannabis use, especially in Canada and the U.K., causing mental health and social problems.
• Expansion of European Union to include some formerly Soviet Eastern European countries.
• General issues relating to Moslem culture bringing mainstream discussions to include western public 'Islamophobia' and issues relating to Sharia law.
• Concerns over human rights in Guantanamo Bay.
• Shift from CD's to Digital Downloads in music industry.
• Dvd's displace Vhs, and Digital Tv begins to be phase in to replace analogue transmissions
• Zimbabwe / Mugabe regime.
• Oil discovered offshore Brazilian coast.
• Global oil peak in mid 2000's.
• Live 8 (20th anniversary of Live Aid) in 2005.
• Live Earth climate change concerts
• Low popularity of George Bush as U.S president and global leader.
• 2008 China summer Olympics.
• Boom in Chinese economy.
• Record prices of oil, natural resources including copper, gold
• decline in western manufacturing.
• Russian concerns, Putin's authoritarian policies.
• concerns about Iranian nuclear projects, with hardliner Ahmadinejad.
• assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan.
• Iraq war / virtual civil war.
• nintendo wii.
• 3g mobile phone networks.
• Wifi / WLAN.
• Tivo / Digital Video Recorders.
• LCD Tv's and monitors.
• Energy saving lightbulbs.
• Reduction of plastic products to curb waste.
• Hybrid cars rise in popularity.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.179.91 (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 

Another decade name possible

One could call 2000s the Twenty-Hundreds. I'd laugh if someone decided to dump "naughties", a very stupid decade name if you ask me, for "Hundreds" or full "Twenty-Hundreds". 82.11.221.164 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the 2000s, 2100s, 2200s, etc. should be known as "the singles decade"

This is an unbelievably simple argument, but the decade in which this posting is made present should be known as the singles decade because all the years in this decade, disregarding the thousands and hundreds digit placeholders are "single digit numbers" of 00 (breaks down to zero, which is a whole number, and 00 can be rewritten as zero, that is it's own single digit entity), followed by 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 followed by the teens decade (because a majority, but not all, years in the teens decade end with 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). Therefore I rest my case. It is absurd to regard this decade as the 2000s because that is only specific to the 21st century. It is absurd to regard this decade as the "ozzies" because that is a reference to pop culture that hasn't caught on in other areas of the world. Therefore it only makes sense to call it a generalized decade, irrespective of the century in which it is mentioned as "the singles decade," because it is represented by single digit numbers. Finally as a sidenote, although one could argue that the third millenium began in the year 2001, there is a good argument that can be made that the beginning of the year 2001 celebrates the "first anniversary" of the third millenium and should NOT be confused as the "start" of the third millenium because although a millenium retains exactly 1,000 years, homage must be paid to the fact that a millenium can be 0.5 years "old" out of 1,000 years of its timespan. Therefore if the third millenium "which is this one" were to be viewed as starting in the year 2000, instead of the year 2001, because the 1 changes to a 2 in the thousands digit, then if the third millenium were 0.5 years "old" that specific date would be midnight, Ante Meridian, at the zero second, on July 1st, 2000 assuming one is bespeaking Eastern Standard Time as a point of geologic reference. The first millenium was 0 A.D. to 999 A.D., assuming "the year 2000 is the start of the third millenium MODEL" oh but look at that, the thousands digit is "zero" yet we call it the "FIRST" millenium. Therefore shouldn't 0 A.D. be construed as the FIRST year of the "are you ready for this" FIRST millenium? The simple answer is, OF COURSE, and the 1,000th year of the first millenium is 999 A.D. assuming zero A.D. is the first year. When you're born you're in your first year of life, but you're less than 1 year old, because at the time of your first slumber in your crib you're enjoying your first night of life and it's your first year of life. Finally, you celebrate your first birthday at the conclusion of your first year of life, which is called your "first anniversary," therefore doesn't are fine third millenium deserve its "FIRST" year of life as a one thousand year leviathan? Of course it does. The year 2000 for that reason begins or creates the third millenium because the "ones" digit is zero and when you were first born you were "zero" YEARS OLD. Therefore its just a matter of obfuscation that persons of interest do not understand the difference between the first anniversary of the millenium and the start of the millenium that is exactly a year apart and therefore the age of the third millenium can be explained in decimal form as 0.5 years old, if it were July 1st, 2000. One final note, the year 2000 being classified as part of the singles decade is stuck in the second millenium if it were the year 2001 as the beginning of the third millenium, yet the year 2000 belongs to the "2000s" decade which has a majority of years stuck in the third millenium. I can't believe I'm devoting this amount of time to this simple of a problem, but I guess I am. Therefore that is my argument on why the year 2000 and pop culture was correct in celebrating it as the dawn of the new third millenium, why the 2000s, and for that matter the 2100s and even the 3200s should [be] known as "the singles decade," why the edits should be reverted to include the singles decade mentioning, and why this is a ridiculously simple argument to make. I would be glad to refute the actual expert who claims that the year 2001 is the beginning of the singles decade, when they can just read this diatribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.151.42 (talk • contribs) 15:43, May 22, 2008

We need a source for this diatribe, other than your imagination. Some of the other possible names for the decades need a source, as well, but this rant seems unique. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can clean it up for you if you'd like, would you like that, maybe in a multiple paragraph format, involving more than just a diatribe, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.151.42 (talk • contribs)

It's still a diatribe. Specific comments...

1. Your confusion of the 00s and the 1900s or 2000s is natural, but there has been no reference provided calling any of them the "singles" decade. The "ozzies" requires a reference, although there are two independent pop culture references it alludes to. I prefer the "uh-oh" decade, myself, but I wouldn't add it unless I found a reference.
2. Your allocation of "zero A.D." to the first millennium has been rejected by consensus.
3. Your allocation of the start of the third millennium as being January 1, 2000 has been rejected by consensus. Declaring it to be July 1, 2000, has never even been considered, and would require much better arguments than you allude to above.

I've probably missed some comments that I've been unable to decipher. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put this in a more easier and comprehendable format for everyone to understand.

I've organized the diatribe to make it more readable. In addition, I'd like to correct you on the concepts that you have alleged that I have made. The biggest one is that you're claiming that I was advocating that the third millenium started on the date July 1st, 2000. In the diatribe I made reference to July 1st, 2000 because I was referring to that date as the age of the third millenium at that specific point in time as of that date of the third millenium using the year 2000 model as the beginning of the third millenium.

Therefore I WAS "NEVER" ADVOCATING THAT the third millenium began on July 1st, 2000. In addition, according to even wikipedia itself the year 2000 is part of the "uh-oh" or as I'd like to call it "the singles decade." Whatever, let the world itself decide that later. Obviously this serves as an interesting point to make, the year 2000 is part of the 2000s decade yet it would be classified as part of the second millenium, because the year 2001 begins the third millenium. The main point here is, why should the year 2000 be classified as part of the second millenium when it is part of a decade that has 9 of its 10 years in the third millenium? The short answer is like you said, I agree that you are right, the year 0 A.D. does not, not only exist in the span of the ages from the beginning of civilazation to our dear present, but it was not included because when the Gregorian calendar was created the Roman Numeral system was the number system of its day and did not have a Roman Numeral describing the concept of zero, if you can believe that. In our day and age zero defines so much and is of course the mathematical identity of nothing. Therefore by not recognizing the year zero A.D. due to the constraints of the times back then we must be satisfied by classifying the year 2000 as a year of the second millenium, but as a member of the first decade of the new third millenium under the beginning of the third millenium 2001 model. To sum up this point well, one could suggest to recognize a 0 A.D. year which would scale back the millenium model from the year January 1st, 2001 to January 1st, 2000, IF THE YEAR ZERO (0) A.D. were recognized, this would allow the year 2000 to be the rightful holder of the "start" of the new millenium. Bottom line I absolutely agree that as of now not recognizing the year 0 A.D. would require that the year 2001 be the start of the third millenium, but in recognition of our more advanced number system, if 0 A.D. were recognized, the new third millenium would "start" on January 1st, 2000. It's basically a clash between the Roman Numeral system and the current days number system. In addition, I could care less if I'm absolutely wrong or absolutely right. I just want my fellow human being to understand this subject better because it is a matter of definition which number system trimuphs over which number system. To include the number zero or not that's up to the world as well. But just like the first day of living organisms they are "zero" years old. When the third millenium started it is zero years old, therefore should the year zero A.D. be recognized? That can be up for debate as well. Here's a website that I used to cite my sources on this. Please respond on how I can support my arguments better. Instead of deriding me or saying that I'm a nut defying the experts is very stressful and fear-mongering. I just want people to understand this debate because when its 0 and your defining millennia, the new millenia starts at 1000, then 2000 and here we are. Under the Roman Numeral, let's not recognize zero model it would go 1 to 1001, to 2001 and then here we are. Here's my source, http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html If anything can be achieved from this, I just want my fellow wikipedians to understand this issue better and spread the word that we're living in "the singles decade."

I'm not sure what you've done, but this is far less readable now than it was before. Unschool (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoever fixed it, thank you.Unschool (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As I read it, anon, the website you've given us actually undercuts your arguement. While this is not something upon which there is unanimity, there does exist consensus, as A.Rubin has already noted. (I know of only one exception within the scientific community.) I'm not inclined to spend any more time on this issue, if you can't do better than bring in websites which disprove your points. Unschool (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I only brought in this website to verify what everyone was telling me on this talk page, but I wanted to clarify my argument that it reduces down to "should" there be a zero A.D., if yes, then the year 2000 would be the start of the third millenium. Under the current model of not recognizing zero A.D., the year 2001 is the start of the third millenium. I agree with almost what everyone was telling me, except I "never" said that July 1st, 2000 was ever the start of the third millenium. Bottom line this is just a debate about whether to recognize the year zero A.D.

Finally, going back to why I originally wanted this decade in which we live as of 2008 should be called "the singles decade" is because it is represented by single digit whole number years. To make a correction to the second diatribe, the current days number system is actually the real number system I was referring to, which recognizes the concept and arabic number of zero. Please respond to refute anything I just posted.-64.185.151.42 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the article for the 3rd millennium, it states that it starts on 1-Jan-2001 and ends 31-Dec-2999. It links to this article in it's page. This article says the decade starts on 1-Jan-2000. So, does is this decade, the 2000s, included in the 3rd millennium? Ciderbarrel (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has vandalized the millennium article again (2999). In any case, the decade is mostly included in the 21st century and 3rd millennium, and you're supposed to link both discussions to a section of a single talk page. Removing malformed template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The media

• The media also started ruin everything around this decade. Look around you. All good shows are gone and teen pregnancy is going up. And no one can create the anime/video games spin-offs/crossovers/rip-offs they dreamed of. --Kid Sonic (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename?

In line with the changes being made to similar articles (1900s, 1800s, etc.), this article would be renamed to 2000–2009. (See talk at Talk:1800–1809.) The rationale for this would be that the meaning of "2000s" has not been clearly established, and it is not clear whether (in real-world usage) it refers to a decade, a century (like "1800s") or a millennium, or just "2000 to the present" whenever the present might be. Any opinions as to whether the renaming is appropriate in this case, or should we wait another couple of years to see how usage develops?--Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Part of me likes it, because I have always felt (as the article says) that the meaning of "2000s" is ambiguous, that it can mean 2000-2010 or 2000-2099 or 2000-2999. Some people incapable of seeing the perspective of others have mocked that concern, but it is very real.

On the other hand, if we go with 2000-2009 instead of 2000s, then would the next decade be under the article 2010s or 2010-2019? Consistency should demand that the latter form be used, but I see that 1810s has not been changed. Would you want to change 1810s to 1810-1819? No, it's not necessary for the sake of clarity, but isn't it necessary to have the encyclopedia using a consistent format? Unschool (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like consistency too, but where real-world usage is manifestly not consistent (at least, not in the way we would like), then we have to go with that. So 1820s, 1530s, 1790s etc., as the common and unambiguous names for those decades, seem perfectly reasonable as WP names. And 1100s, 1800s etc., which in the real world almost always refer to a century rather than a decade, can't reasonably be used as WP names for decades - the best alternative seeems to be 1100–1109 etc. Hence we already have two differing conventions rather than a single consistent standard, so in dubious cases (like 0s, 2000s, 2010s) it can be debated which of the two conventions is most "consistent". It seems most consistent to me to use 2000–2009 followed by 2010s, 2020s, etc., using the conventions as for previous centuries. But if real-world usage turns out to be markedly different, then again, we should be following that rather than inventing our own version of the language. --Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it doesn't take much to convince me; I'm the one who spent a lot of time trying to make other people realize just how confusing this name is (the Wiki World on this is almost verbatim from my edits, except for the use of the term "twenty hundreds"). And, given that (as again, the article makes clear) there is no universally accepted nickname, we are left with confusion. Yeah, I will support a move to 2000-2009. Unschool (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and will support such a move. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would be better suited at 2000s (decade) (which could also be done for 1900s (decade)). This title is confusing and is never spoken in dialogue; it's not notable as terminology referencing the 2000s decade. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 12:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That idea is not unreasonable, but I feel the argument has one weakness: Is "2000s" used in dialogue? I mean, that's why the whole section on the difficulty with the name is in there. No one knows what to say. I wouldn't object to your proposed title if you found others who supported it. I mean, as I've said before, the previous title was fatally flawed, and I just want something that is clear. Both the current title and your proposal are superior to what existed before; perhaps yours is more elegant, but I remain uncommitted. Unschool (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's no agreed-upon term to use for the current decade, but I'm certain I've never heard anyone say "the 2000–2009 decade". The article starts with "2000–2009 is the current decade"... but "2000-2009" is not in possessive form, it's simply a span of years. Personally, I think it's just too clunky and doesn't fit. Also, there are too many variables when we use dashes... i.e. "2000-2009", "2000 - 2009", "2000—2009", etcetera. I think 2000s (decade) would disambiguate it clearly enough without resorting to OR terms, and would be less confusing to the general public as it follows the "1980s" and "1990s" pattern. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, now your idea's out there. Let's see what everyone else has to say. Unschool (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the objections to 2000–2009 (it's perfectly normal usage of English, not OR in the least; why should it be in possessive form?; why does it matter that some people might use strange dashes"?) but I've no objection to 2000s (decade) either, provided we can show that 2000s is commonly used to refer to the decade (and not just as some vague period of time from the year 2000 until round about now, whenever now happens to be).--Kotniski (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4][5]... just scratches the surface of reliable sources using "2000s" as a descriptor for the current decade. I can find more if necessary. And this one in particular: [6] uses as well "2010s" and "2020s", indicating that they were insinuating "2000s" as the decade, not the century or millennium. I cannot for the life of me find any source indicating "2000-2009" as a descriptor for this decade. Would gladly invite someone to find any. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 10:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems common enough on Google. Out of a few hundred thousand hits, there must be some you consider acceptable as sources. --Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And while I don't necessarily object to 2000s (decade), I'm not convinced that any of your references (even the last one) are unambiguously using the term for the decade. When someone says "the early 2000s" we don't know (and maybe he doesn't himself) whether he means "the first years of the form 2xxx" or "the first years of the form 20xx" or "the first years of the form 200x". And when someone in 2008 uses "the 2000s" talking about events that have already happened, they can only be referring to "2000 until now", which isn't a decade, century or anything. --Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And where is the notion that "2000-2009" is a notable "name" for this decade? This source: [7] notes "1890s", "1900s", and "1910s", all as decades. Why should we treat "2000s" any different? It baffles me that this is even in discussion, or that I even need to search for sources. We had "1990s", we're going to have "2010s", "2020s"... how is it not simple common sense that this decade is "2000s"? I understand the ambiguation of the simple title "2000s", but as I've said that is fixed with "2000s (decade)", or a similar disambiguator. Anyway, the current name is ridiculous and I am vehemently opposed to it. I hope others come along for more discussion. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 11:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I haven't the least idea why you find the current name ridiculous; any range of years can be referred to in English in the form x–y, and this particular range certainly often is, as Google will quickly reveal. And common sense doesn't necessarily dictate English usage, but even if it did, why is it any less common-sensical that 1900s and 2000s follow 1800s, 1700s, 1600s etc. in referring to centuries rather than decades?--Kotniski (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I came here from the WP:Third opinion page. There's an established consensus for this, at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Decades. That isn't set in stone, of course, but if there's going to be a discussion about the naming conventions for decades, it should happen on the talk page there. For the moment, we should go with that convention. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

merge from naming dispute

I don't see the need for what should be at 2000s Name Problem (about one paragraph) not being here. I suggest it be merged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

When I first saw that title, I thought it was about our naming dispute, which is a completely different issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree totally. Simply not worth a page on its own. Currently that fork reads mostly like one person thinking out loud about a fairly minor problem, and I'm not sure it can ever get much beyond that. Article had been tagged for deletion by myself and another editor, but the creator removed the tags. --Nickhh (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree as well, i editied the page to make it less orginal research but still overly OR, the article should be deleted and the naming problem should contiue to have a meantion on this page. Pro66 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Since any discussion seems to have stalled, I went ahead and simply redirected 2000s Name Problem here. There was no new information that was worth merging. GlassCobra 02:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Unschool (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2000s

Why add confusion to Wikipedia's users? The offical usage for 2000s is the 2000-2009 decade. Not the entire 21st century of the entire 3rd millenium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoj Oirgela (talk • contribs) 06:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the Rename?[8] section above first. Pro66 (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Official usage? Says who? Unschool (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of article on hold for now . . .

Editors on this page have explained this so many times that I just want to refer you to the extensive discussion that has taken place on the talk page for this article over the past three years. This is probably the best location for reviewing the decisions that have been made. In short, this article had become literally the longest article in Wikipedia, and was a compendium of anything and everything that anyone could remember had anything to do with the decade. It was impossibly large, and served no purpose. So I'm reverting this to its shortened version. Once the decade is a few years behind us, we may have enough perspective to add material, but for now, we don't really know what is notable, and so we're keeping it brief. No offense is intended to the other editors. If you want to know what it looked like before, just click here. Though many tried, no one could tame this piece of crap until it really got majorly cut back. Unschool (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments transferred from user talk pages

The following two sections are copied from posts that I have made to the talk pages of User:OregonD00d and anon editor 209.237.90.4. Though there is no evidence that he or she actually reads this article's talk page, I thought that for the record these comments should be left here as well. I am placing them in italics following bold section headings in the hope that it will remain clear which comments have been transferred. Unschool (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Adhering to Etiquette

I can see that you're becoming an active member of the Wikipedia community, and I welcome you. I want to draw your attention to a situation over at 2000–2009, where you reverted my edit. My edit, which was also a revert, included an edit summary explaining my reversion. This is always a good practice when reverting another editor's work, as it demonstrates that you are not just dismissing their efforts out of hand. Your revert of my edit contained no such explanation, and as you were reverting an edit for which a rationale was provided, it would be courteous of you to leave an explanation as well.

Beyond that, my edit reflected a consensus that has existed on this article for nearly two years. There are reasons, which can be found at extraordinary length in the archives of the article, that the consensus of the editors has been to not create multiple sections within the 2000–2009 article at this time. Before reverting again, I encourage you to read the many months of discussion which preceeded the formatting of the article in its present form.

You have done nothing wrong; we are encouraged to take bold steps in writing this project. But in being bold, we must also recognize that sometimes others will not agree with our edits, and we must give due consideration to their feelings on the matter. This only works because of consensus.

I wish you the best, and look forward to seeing more of your contributions. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to 2000–2009

Your desire to make this article "more like the other decade articles" is understandable; at one point this article did have such a format. And one day, it needs to again have a more comprehensive format. But you really need to look back--way back--in the history of this article to understand why the consensus has been to not format it this way at this time. Before reverting this, please read the lengthy discussion into which other editors have poured uncounted hours of effort. Then, before you try to return it to this format, engage us in discussion as to why you think the changes need to be made. You may convince us, and in so doing, change the consensus. But for now, the consensus is against what you are doing. If you continue to make this change without engaging in discussion, you will not come across as a sincere good-faith editor. Unschool (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why It Should Return To The Old Format

The decade is almost over, there's only 14 months of the 2000s left. It's not like it's 2004.

As long as the article is regulated and covers only the same things the older decades do, I see no reason why not to expand the topic.

There's a little of the 2000s left, but most of the decade is in the past.

-OregonD00d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.90.4 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

There is no way to have a decent perspective on what is notable about this decade right now, Because It's Just Like The 90s. Yes, it is 2008, yes we are down in the last two years of the decade. But could you define the

• 1960s without Woodstock, the RFK and MLK assassinations, and the landing on the moon?
• 1970s without the Jimmy Carter's "malaise", the Iranian hostage crisis, and gas hitting $1.00/gallon for the first time?
• 1980s without the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism?
• 1990s without Lewinskygate and Clinton's impeachment?

All of these events happened in the last two years of their respective decade, and an article written in the last 12-24 months would have missed them. But that's not the real problem, because you can always add in important events later.

What happens when you open this up

The real problem is that, without some sense of perspective, too much gets put in the article. Stuff of questionable notability, stuff of questionable duration, stuff that belonged in other articles. Some samplings from an earlier version of this article (these are examples of actual text from the old article):

• Formal wear such as sun dresses and evening gowns become more popular amongst the younger generations in Europe, especially in the latter part of the decade.
• Windows XP and Microsoft Office 2003 become the ubiquitous industry standard in personal computer software. Open source and free software continues to be a notable but minority interest, with versions of Linux gaining in popularity, as well as the Mozilla Firefox web browser and the OpenOffice document editor.
• The wearing of thongs among young woman, popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s, becomes less popular by 2005. Less revealing undergarments, such as boyshorts, make a comeback.
• Videophones are cheap and abundant, yet even by mid-decade, they had not received much attention.
• There is an increased awareness of global poverty through campaigns such as ONE.
• Gamers who were kids in the 1980s and 1990s are now adults and continue to play video games.
• Underage consumption of alcohol under supervision of a parent or legal guardian is legalized in many states in the US in early 2005.
• Professional wrestling, which had separate golden ages in the 1980s and 1990s, begins to decline in popularity in North America until about late 2006. Many attribute this decline to the monopoly on the industry held by World Wrestling Entertainment after the collapse of both World Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling in 2001, with WWE acquiring the remains of both companies. However, WWE would revive ECW as a third brand along side its RAW and SmackDown! brands in 2006 due to increased nostalgia. During this period Total Nonstop Action Wrestling attempts to create an alternative to the WWE product and gains a cult following but does not become a major competitor in the market. The death of main event star Eddie Guerrero in 2005 prompts WWE to enact a drug testing policy. WWE continues to be popular overseas during this period, which prompts them to increase the number of televised foreign shows.
• In Italy (2006: Prodi) and in Spain (2004: Zapatero) center-left and left parties won the elections.
• Ethnic music, especially in near tropical locations is mainstream for most of the early to mid '00s, especially in the rise of Reggaeton and Reggae artist Sean Paul in the mid-2000s.
• Martha Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and 2 years probation after 'insider trading' of her ImClone Systems stock.
• Slang words and catch phrases used often in 2000s America include "retarded", "gay", "crunk", "Bob Saget!" "wanksta", "whateva", "totally", "bringing SexyBack", "seriously", "tight", "snap", "Git-R-Done", "hell yeah", "sick", "sweet", "beyotch", "you're fired","straight", "spiffy", "far out", "peace", "Rock on!", "let it be", "take a slow ride man", "you gonna hit that", "you cool man", "pwnage", "emo", "noob", "Über", "leet", and "word up". Many of them have roots from the 1980s and 1990s, such as the word "totally". 1990s hip-hop slang such as the words "yo", "homie", and "chill" still remains popular in the middle 2000s. A lot of slang from gaming and the internet that were less well-known become popular, such as "Noob", "Pwn" and "Owned". Also, Internet slang becomes more mainstream and even more popular across the Internet as use of social networking sites and instant messaging grows dramatically. These include "omg", "brb", "lol", "rotflol", "wtf?", Leetspeak, and their variants, as well as abbreviations for many different phrases.
• In Eastern Germany and other ex-Communist countries there was for a short time a growth in nostalgia for former Communist times known as Ostalagia.
• Movie remakes and sequels hit an all-time high, in contrast to purely original scripts. Also, many movies based on old TV shows and novels become more popular in Hollywood.
• As people become more used to the Internet during this decade it begins to be spelled lower-cased, called simply "the internet" or "internet" as opposed to "Internet" or "The Internet".
• The revival of Progressivism (Liberalism) in the U.S., now perceived a politically "center-right" country.
• Social security and medicare expected to go dry in the next 20 years.
• The total collapse of the global financial systems in 2008, the worst economic crash since 1929.
• More Americans believe the United states of America is in the final stage of being a global superpower.

Some of these items may be more important than others, but are any of them so vital that they need to be included in an article that covers the most significant events of the decade? The problem with this comprehensive approach is that everyone who thinks that they remember anything from the decade thinks that they can put it in here, because "it happened during the 2000s". But most of this belongs, if anywhere, in other articles, not here. This needs to cover only the most significant events, because otherwise, it will cover all events, and that is simply not the way to write an encyclopedia article. Unschool (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

President Obama

This is a comment that I left at the talk page of anon editor 209.237.90.4:

We've been through this before. Please, please, when you are reverting someone else's edit, please provide an explanation of your reasoning for the revert. As usual, I did this when reverting you, but you did not provide the same courtesy. I am going to revert again, and I await your discussion on the article talk page explaining why you feel we should include this one bit of information.

Oh, and please realize, I do recognize that this is a HUGE story. I'm sure that I am just as excited about it as you are. But my personal feelings do not dictate what I include in an article on Wikipedia. Unschool (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome the comments on others regarding this matter. Unschool (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusion?

A decade lasts 10 years, this says 2000-2009 when it should be 2000-2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Um 2000-2009 is ten years, if your still not sure you can count the years ;) Pro66 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2000 to 2009 is nine years. That is, if you are adding like this: 2000 + 9 = 2009 rather than counting it like this: 2000, 2001, 2002 and so on. But conventional wisdom is that 10 years is a decade, and if you added 10 to 2000 it would be 10. Just as if you added 10 to 1990, it would be 2000.

Am I missing something?

68.51.41.46 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just found out that the definition is different, never mind. Disregard my reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify for you, here is the how many years in the decade, 2000 is the 1st year, 2001 is 2nd year, 2002 is 3rd, 2003 is 4th, 2004 is 5th, 2005 is 6th, 2006 is 7th, 2007 is 8th, 2008 is 9th and oh look 2009 is the tenth and final year of the decade. Pro66 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Conventional knowledge would say 2000 plus a decade (10) is 2010. But if that's the case, never mind. It seems many sites list 2000-2010 as the decade rather than what it listed here. Someone told me the Wikipedia definition is missing only a day, but the end of 2009 is the real decade end rather than the start of 2010. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If they list 2000-2010 as the decade than some sites may list 1990-2000 as a decade because 1990+10=2000! But it wouldn't be true - a decade is YYY0-YYY9

Rick rolling

I think it's a purely 00s fad. Also the Kylie Mole rolling. (link to YouTube video for her song So Excellent) 78.130.136.199 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rick rolling is purely an internet meme. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

New Title

The new title is kinda ridiculous and inconsistent... it is accepted by most people living in this decade that 2000s means 2000-20009. Television, news media, music all denotes this. Juvenile example: Watching a music video TV station will call their 2000-2009 year music anthology "00s" or "2000s" not 2000-2009. Its generally accepted that 2000s means the decade of 2000-2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrlight (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move (April 5, 2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move -- Aervanath (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

---

• 2000-2009 to 2000s. Typically when people have to refer to this decade, they'll say the 2000s. "2000-2009" is not used.Voortle (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• "2000s" can be ambiguous between "2000 to 2009" and "2000 to 2099". If we make the move, put in at the top a disambig hatlink to 21th century. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose could mean 2000-2009 or 2000-2099 or 2000-2999 or 2001-2010 or 2001-2100 or 2001-3000 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional support for a move to 2000s (decade) instead, to disambiguate. As per the exact same thing I argued here about 6 months ago. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 07:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional support for a move to 2000s (decade), if done for all of the decade articles. The proper venue for this request is WT:YEARS, in the absence of a WT:DECADES. Also requires rewriting some protected year navigation templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutral. What we are using seems to be the preferred method. Since we are still in the period 2000-2009, the actual, most commonly used term, is this decade. But that won't work very well next year. All the first decade of the century articles are currently xx00-xx09. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason all the other first decade of the century articles are listed as "xx00-xx09" is because the people who moved this article from 2000s to its current namesake went and changed those article names as well. I still strongly support a move to 2000s (decade). — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Arthur on this one. I supported the move from 2000s to 2000-2009, only because a) I recognized the inherent ambiguity in the previous name, and b) I was told that articles like the one on the first decade of the 20th century were being done in a similar format. But the current name remains unsatisfactory (as we knew when adopting it), because you can't just say "2000-2009" in a sentence. Not as bad as the symbol used by Prince, but you get my meaning. So the 2000s (decade) strikes me as good compromise, as long as we also do 1900s (decade) and 1800s (decade), etc. Unschool 08:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however, that the proper place for this discussion is not here, but at WP:YEARS. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subject headers in this article

Please read the section above before reverting my removal of the section headings from the article. Literally years of discussion and consensus building has led to the article's current form, and these subject headers are quickly moving us down the slippery slope again. I understand the good intentions, but trust me, we've been there, and don't need to make the same mistake again. Unschool 08:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move (May 17, 2009)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• 2000–2009 → 2000s (decade) — Current article name is inconsistent with all if not most templates that use "2000s" (i.e. Category:2000s music groups) and the general popular consensus that the decade be addressed "2000s", at least as of the present. The actual term "2000–2009" is not notable and is used nowhere outside Wikipedia. I realize a similar move to this has been requested recently, but this was for a move back to "2000s", not "2000s (decade)", which is my request. I feel the latter gives enough disambiguation to address the concerns of some users of moving the article to simply "2000s". If this move is successful, I will request the same be done at 1900–1909, 1800–1809 and so on. Thank you.— ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 06:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Dude i actually totally agree. MANY sources use "2000s" and mean 2000-2009 and not the whole century. Mimzy1990 (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And if we are to keep this article at its current namesake, then shouldn't we also be renaming categories to Category:2000–2009 music groups? It's the inconsistency that especially bothers me. But overall "2000–2009" sticks out like a sore thumb with "1990s" and "2010s" on either side of it.— ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 06:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Are you suggesting the other dedade articles be moved as well? For example, 1900–1909, 1800–1809, 1700–1709, etc. Disregard that, didn't notice you already mentioned it. Jafeluv (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If the answer is yes, you might first want to get consensus for changing this naming convention guideline at its talk page. Until then, I suggest we close this discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Good guidelines reflect what editors actually agree on. That page has been notified, and if there is still a body of editors who feel differently, this page is as good a place for discussion as any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Well said. Looks like someone reverted your change with the edit summary "updating naming rules as recently agreed". I've left a message on the user's talk page and invited them to participate in the discussion here. Jafeluv (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • That was me; thanks for the notification, but I've already commented in both discussions. (It wasn't a revert, actually.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Maybe we shouldn't actually move this without checking with the other pages, but let's go ahead and continue polling, and get a feel for how the editors here feel about it. Unschool 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment all the other usages have to be renamed. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Poll

• Support moving 2000-2009 to 2000s (decade). Unschool 08:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• I second this Support. Mimzy1990 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have to Support as well. Pro66 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, seems a good idea. YeshuaDavid (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I never agreed with the rename to "2000-2009". This is clear and makes it consistent with category usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support for this one, and possibly 1900s too, but unconvinced about the others (1800s...) - see other discussion (WT:NC (numbers and dates)).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotniski (talk • contribs)
• Support This permits decade articles to be named predictably without denying the use of 2000s or 1900s for the century; an admirable compromise. I think it should be generalized to all such decade articles, but that may be another move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support for this and other affected articles. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)

Just to let users frequenting this discussion know that I have brought up this matter at that talk page. Feel free to join discussion there, thank you.— ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1900-1909 discussion, also at WP:RM, links here; if anybody thinks these two should be treated differently, please say so. 1800-1809, and so on, should probably be another RM. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and Changes

As this decade is 94% over, I think it is time to give it a full article.

We should just make sure people don't make it too long like they did before. Mimzy1990 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

You may have a point. However, as this is an extremely long-standing point of consensus, I think you need to discuss it with us first. Have you seen what the article looked like before? Unschool 02:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have. But when WILL this expire? 2010? Later? There is only 7 1/2 months of the 2000s left; as long as we keep it trim, i think it's okay to expand now. Mimzy1990 (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: a note at the top telling editors to keep the article trim until March 1, 2010, when the new decade novelty wears off. Mimzy1990 (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

When should this be expanded?

I suggest either:

• Right now, as the decade is almost over
• January 1, 2010
• March 1, 2010

Mimzy1990 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Big trends

This is just my opinion, but I don't see the following paragraph:

A strong current of postmodernism and neo-primitivism began in this decade, with alternative medicine becoming mainstream in industrialized societies [3] and a trend toward cynical and relativist thought.

as representing one of the major trends of the decade that merits inclusion in our brief overview of the decade, so I have removed it. The stuff I see as belonging here is the stuff that pretty much everyone who watches the news is already not already aware of, but is stuff that everyone feels [rightly or wrongly] like they could write about themselves. You know, the big trends. Anyway, it just makes all the clearer how much we need to consider the proposal I have now moved again to the bottom of the page—on trying to determine what belongs here. Unschool 11:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but sometimes, outside observers can see things that the subjects themselves cannot, therefore we should also strive towards that goal as much as is possible (even though not completely possible). Maybe ask old people? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you're talking about an article like Particle physics, "outsiders" are easy to find—few of us know much about the field. The same can be true for Hannah Montana; I've heard of her, but have no idea who she is, as is true of a lot of my generation. But who is an "outsider" to the 2000s decade? Anyone living is part of it. You may be on to something (I'm not sure what) when you say to ask "old people", but how old is old? Unschool 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not everything that's important will be noted in the popular culture and news enough that /everyone/ (like circa 90%+??) will feel like they'll be able to write about it. I can't imagine the different kinds of important things that might happen that the average person would not even understand (thought that's really extreme, it will be mostly events that did not reach market-penetration coverage, did so but did not stick due to insufficient level of bombardment and/or not everyone will feel like they could write it) Example: Whenever a Voyager leaves the solar system, the first time the human species sent anything out of the Solar System would you not say that deserves a sentence in the Science section of the article? Would regular people care or remember a decade later? I know I would. And who can tell me what a heliopause is?.. This ain't like a moon landing.. And about old people, cause like you said Hannah Montana. I've got another one, Jonas Brothers. Bah, they'll be forgotten in 5 years. I dont even know any of the two's songs, unlike, say N*Sync and those other people from the 90s. I'm a Gen Yer. So, that might be a hint of the first two's awareness or less importantness (especially awareness amongst the general population). (Of course 1, an almost useless sample) How old? Oldness is relative. Try a range, see what happens. The corrollary is old people would think nothing's large enough. I know old people who's knowledge of music ends at 1970. Mainly to establish notability to prevent fancruftism. Depending on practicality, this might not be serious. By outsiders I meant people who are more outside the popular culture of the 00s. So, old people, scientists, academics, technologists, historians, sociologists, scholars of decades for perspective, because they've either seen many decades before, or they are so used to jumping around the timeline in the course of their studies that they less self-identify with the current decade than most people and so are better able to be NPOV writers of the subject. And also better able to compare and contrast. Young people (very cautiously) because we would miss many of the things (or at least nominees of the things) if we didn't listen to them.

It would take a Shakespearian work of genius to figure out how the last paragraph could correctly cause change in the overview, so all of the previous applies to the future, expanded article. Your idea has merit. The clause caught my eye; just trying to inject some "not so fast, don't be so sure that's an absolute." into your statement that was intended for something else entirely.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6