Talk:Century/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

2447:"authorities" that developed the subsequent systems based on them, seemed to have been mathematically unsophisticated and seem to have failed to predict the nonsense that they were imposing on their posterity. (NB: I am not saying that I would have done better in their sandals, but that is hardly an explanation, let alone an excuse, especially because our ancestors failed to consult me in the first place.) The only defensible extant system so far is the palaeontological or cosmological one of BP (or similar) in which the time spans are beyond any scale that could meaningfully take account of years or decades, or even centuries usually. What we are to do here is essentially a matter of taste. Various versions of history vs maths, and sociology vs both. And every one to establish its unique merits and authority over all the others by shouting. The religious basis of the Dionysian system is nonsensical, and mathematically indefensible in its extension to beyond its original rationale, which was in itself incoherent and inconsistent at best. If it leads to different conventions for years, decades, centuries and millennia, that is a black mark, but if it is imposed by authority, then go ahead. 2515:, when they had apparently been acceptable to most other editors. The 'decade' article should give precedence to the popular or vernacular definition, but with a secondary mention of the formal ordinal usage which some people still prefer to use; similarly, the 'century' article should give precedence to the formal ordinal definition, with a secondary mention of the popular usage. In each case, there should be a notation of the usage preferred for Knowledge (XXG) articles pertaining to those respective calendar periods. Finally, since the term “strict usage” fallaciously implies that other usages are not ‘strict’, I suggest that term should be replaced by “formal usage”. 1660:, "and counted in elapsed, not current years, then the first full year after the incarnation ran from 1 September 1 BC to 31 August AD 1", and he placed the incarnation on 25 December 2 BC. This source does not address when modern centuries should begin or end, but if the incarnation is placed on 25 December 2 BC, and 1 January is chosen as the first day of the year, then the first full year after the incarnation ran from 1 January 1 BC to 31 December 1 BC, and the first full century after the incarnation ran from 1 January 1 BC to 31 December AD 99. This interpretation, while it incorporates some hypotheses. is no less strict than the USNO interpretation. 637:", since 1900 to 1999 is a distinct century known as the 1900s, and there's no rule saying we can't count how many positive numbered centuries of that type there's been, and who's going to enforce it if there were such a rule? The Time Police? They're too busy stopping amateur time travelers from creating paradoxes to bother piddling about with semantics. You'd just have to count 0000-0999 as the first century in whatever proleptic calendar you use, where 0000 would be equivalent to 1 BC, if you were using the scheme that utilizes the BC/AD calendar eras (or BCE/CE). 1246:

the like. The third seems to be confusion on Iamthemostwanted2015's part about the point in question, as the source given (regardless of the fact that Time Magazine is a rather low quality source on this matter, compared to many others in this article) mentions only that the AD system was first adopted in 525 not that it started at that point in time. To say that the AD system "began with the year 1" is to state that the years labelled AD have as their lowest representative the year 1 AD. That is, that there is no 0 AD or -1 AD etc. --

1722:; all the hypothesizing about what Exiguus might have intended and why is OR, with a thin veneer of previously published ideas behind it. The "comprises the years AD 1901–2000" definition is what the RS tell us is the conventional interpretation, and always has been. How WP:WEIGHT really applies is in treating the 1900–1999 idea as having the same weight. It doesn't. It's a popular misconception, but like all popular misconceptions we can cover what RS say about it, but we don't engage in false equivalence about it ( 1775:

celebrated) when we rolled the clocks to 2001. The public's view is obviously that rolling to the big 00 is the turn of the century, that the century is running from January 1, 1900 to December 31, 1999. Things change over time, and discussing what Dionysius Exiguus really meant to happen, and if it was in September or December, I mean, that just shows that some things have to roll with culture, and that it is apparent that the contemporary definition is linked to "Party like it's 1999"

1800:. Back around the turn of the millennium, I saw an article (in the mainstream press) about how confused people are today in thinking that the 21st century began on 1 January 2000, while people in 1900 would not have thought this (according to the article); something in our education system got dropped between then and now. By the 1980s, it was a common belief that the then-current millennium would end on 31 Dec. 1999 (e.g. Prince's song "Party like It's 1999"). 31: 2393:'s version of technical usage really isn't the same as popular usage. In popular usage the period 1 January 1900 to and including 31 January 1999 would be called "the 20th century", while in McClenon's technical usage, the century would be 19, and would probably only be found in some field or parameter in a computer program or database; it probably wouldn't be found in a complete English sentence. 1455:, that is, August 29. Dionysius believed Incarnation should be treated as the Nativity which he dated to what we would call 2 BC December 25. He thought AD 1 should be the first full year after the Incarnation, 1 BC August 29 through AD 1 August 28. But since we start the year on January 1, we would consider the first full year after the incarnation to be 1 BC January 1 through AD 1 December 31. 351:

equivalent expressions (like for example "the first century"). I have been taught that English usage is ambiguous and can be different in different regions (e.g. the 19th century could mean both 1900-1999 and 1800-1899 depending on country), so you had to check or remember the right definition in each case which is sometimes difficult and inconvenient. Not sure if that is true though.

2376:

high-order digits, '19' is the 'century' field. There are technical reasons having to do with the parsing of data why that use is simpler; it is also the same as the popular usage. Therefore restricting standard use to the pedantic use should be deprecated not only by popular authors but by computer scientists. The same flexibility should apply to 'decade'.

2495:, but of course Knowledge (XXG) is not entirely neutral in this matter. When these issues were first considered when the articles on specific decades, centuries, and millennia were originally composed (perhaps someone can recall the discussions then and point to the relevant archived Talk pages), a compromise must have been agreed, which produced the 1205:. In the first edit the editor asserts "In strict usage, centuries commence with the years ending in '01' and concluded with the years ending in '00'." That's wrong, because the year 1 does not have a leading 0. The second edit inserts an HTML comment, "Do not mention the '1700s', '1800s', '1900s', etc. because they are barley used." This is wrong. 1138:

idea that the proponents of the idea that a century begins in a year ending in 1 have a different view of the turn of beginning of the 20th century vs. the beginning of the 21st century. Likewise, no reliable sources have been presented to show popular celebrations were larger on Dec. 31, 1900 / Jan. 1, 1901 compared to Dec. 31, 1899 / Jan. 1, 1900.

613:‘odometer’ effect doesn’t seem right because the statement that 21st century is ‘sometimes considered to begin on January 1, 2000’ is incorrect since most people think of the 21st century as 20xx rather than 2001-2100. I know this is wrong, but that’s Psychologically correct and provided with a reliable source per 2458:

chosen for easy sorting). Have leap days for maintaining the solstice as the first day of the year, and keeping weeks consistent. Religious calendars may continue as they please, as at present, and be ignored, also as at present. But I doubt that this improvement will happen soon enough to settle our dispute.

2854:

Please present proper sources to backup that claim. The 19th century began on 1901-01-01, because there is NO year zero. Not in Gregorian calendar, not in ISO 8601, nowhere. Counting begins always at 1. When you count and have to select the first 10 people in a crowd, the members of this array are 1,

2658:

I see no previous commenters have addressed the question of the RfC, so I will: No, these edits are not in accord with (the consensus of) the March RfC. The consensus as summarized by the closer was to use "strict usage" and "general usage" terminology, and the edits in question do not use it and in

612:

appeals to most people, the millennium celebrations were mostly held on 1999-2000 rather than 2000-2001, which is why the term ‘popular’ was used. To describe what most people did. It was also used in Oxford to describe the reckoning of centuries from **00 to **99, whereas strict means **01-**00. The

320:

I'm glad this answers why sometimes Scandinavians say "century" when they really mean "hundred" because they don't have the ordinal distinction that "century" has in English. But then this needs to say they call what the first 99 years of the Gregorian calander. Or do they not group those years into

3030:

for centuries was common in the US in the middle of the 20th century, when Roman numerals were somewhat common in formal documents. But by the 21st century, Roman numerals are very much out of favor for almost any purpose, and are no longer taught in schools. The only common use I can think of is as

2510:

What is clear for the present discussion is that the content of the articles on the terms ‘decade’ and ‘century’ must be consistent with the other articles on those topics in Knowledge (XXG), and I think they should both be returned to something like the state they were in before the recent edits by

2270:

You correctly point out I limited my observation to year numbering within centuries. I agree decade numbering within a century is not consistent with year numbering. And so the 20th century starts on January 1, 1901. But the first decade of the 20th century is the 1900s, which of course starts on

2134:

for century. I think we all agree the 20th century began on January 1, 1901 and ended on December 31st, 2000. I think we also agree the 1900s began on January 1st, 1900 and ended on December 31st, 1999. I think we all agree both uses are equally acceptable and common. I think we all understand the

1855:

Sorry to jump in so late, but as there are many great articles that cover this controversy in depth, perhaps we should include a sidebar at that top of articles or sections that hit this nerve. The sidebar can plainly and clearly state that "in this article the ___ convention will be used – e.g. the

1312:

As for redefiining it now, or in recent years, I suggest it's too late for that. With the Gregorian calendar having been adopted world wide for both secular and many religious purposes, any attempt by the Pope to redefine it would not be widely accepted, and no one else is in a position to change it

366:

No, English usage is ambiguous as to whether the 19th century is 1801 to 1900 (based on church calendars that have no year 0) or 1800-1899 (based on astronomical calendars which do) but everyone agrees that e.g. 1950 is was in the 20th century. Probably more people would follow the second convention

2375:

was being addressed that there are three ways of defining a century: pedantic, a hundred years ending with an 00 year (e.g., 1801-1900, 1901-2000); popular, a hundred years beginning with a 00 year (e.g., 1800-1899, 1900-1999); and technical, where the technical use is that the field containing the

2081:

The same thing with centuries: A century is a period of 100 years, therefore a century must be counted from a year ending on 01 to the following year which is a multiple of 100: The 1st century is the years 1-100 rather than 1-99, the 20th century is the years 1901-2000 rather than 1900-1999 and so

2075:

The most common way to count centuries and decades is to group years with the same hundreds or tens digit but that's not correct. Do you think it's correct to count the period from year 1 to year 9 as a decade? I don't think that's correct. The years 1-9 is not ten years. Therefore, decades must be

1635:

Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000.

1595:

How should the two principal positions about when centuries begin and end in modern times be described. The current article states "One is based on strict construction, while the other is based on popular perspective (general usage)" and has similar language in other parts of the article. But it is

790:

Your question "Another point, if it has a year zero, why wouldn't the person be able to consider it the first year of the first century?" is much different than your edit. Your edit says "According to the strict construction of the Gregorian calendar, because there was no year zero, the 1st century

2818:

That is an incorrect extrapolation and is NOT backed by your quote. It simply says that 19 designates the 19th century, not 1900 or inclusion of month and day. It does not make any statement whatsoever about the starting date of centuries, and as you wrote, it's just a draft. Also, it still stands

1747:

When it comes to language conventions, there's no such thing as a popular misconception. Language is chosen by the masses and is whatever the masses say it is. This is different from things that can be experimentally verified. The popular misconception that in the northern hemisphere, the Earth is

1245:

The first point is (ironically, given his penchant for using the word) beyond pedantic. The year 1 is not written with leading zeros, but they are understood to be there when comparing to years with larger numbers of digits. The second point is false. I often encounter the usage of "the 1700s" and

913:

and you’ll see it’s based off the birth of Jesus Christ so your statement of the Gregorian calendar not being: ‘specifically Catholic or Christian is wrong’ is incorrect. I politely ask you watch what your saying before posting it. And provide a reliable source that otherwise claims I’m wrong, and

2836:

ISO 8601 does not exist in a vacuum; there are only two popular ways to refer to the period that begins around 1900 and ends around 2000: either "the 1900s" or "the 20th century". (At least in English, which is the dominant language of the computer industry, which is the realm that ISO 8601 deals

2742:

If in a given application it is sufficient to express a calendar date with less accuracy than a complete representation as specified in 4.1.2.2, either two, four or six digits may be omitted, the omission starting from the extreme right-hand side. The resulting representation will then indicate a

2486:

The 21st (twenty-first) century is the current century of the Anno Domini era or Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2100. It is the first century of the 3rd millennium. It is distinct from the century known as the 2000s

2446:

repeating the same things to each other. The fact is that there is no cogently conclusive basis, mathematical, social, nor historical, for imposing any one convention rather than another. The calendar is a mess in many ways, for the simple reasons that the originators, and also most of the (ahem)

2415:

That is sort of true, but if I had been writing the bug report, I would have written it in complete sentences and would have referred to the century field as the century field. In any case, it is a reason why strict prescriptive enforcement of the pedantic rule is rigid, strict, and prescriptive

2213:

Note that the first decade of any century cannot be treated in the same way as other decades. "The 2000s," for example, could easily be taken to refer to the whol of the twenty-first century. To refer to the second decade (i.e., without writing "second decade"), prefer numerals (e.g., 1910s); the

1774:

OK, so if you are looking for historical and scientific reasoning, you can just skip right over my comments here! I have to tell you, when it was December 31, 1999 and at midnight it turned to the year 2000, that was big, really big around the world. No one celebrated like that (I mean, yes, they

1137:

The other statements and sources in the article indicate there is a tension between when academic and government sources (such as the US Naval Observatory) consider a century to begin, and when the general public has the biggest celebrations. No reliable sources have been presented to support the

581:

numbered centuries in the Gregorian Calendar as it was devised, the year is the longest numbered period. Numbering the centuries is external to the calendar. The Gregorian Calendar started from 15 October 1582, there are no dates prior to this in the Calendar, for that you would need to project a

350:

Scandinavians also use the equivalent of century ('århundrade') in the same way as in English, however using a "hundreds" suffix is much more common by convention. The first century is called the zero hundreds, although in my experience that expression is seldom used and instead replaced by other

2087:

This is the reason that I'm writing even though the most common way to count decades and centuries is to group years with the same hundreds or tens digit, this way to count decades and centuries is not correct, as this would refer the 1st century to the years 1-99 which is only 99 years: The 1st

2457:

The rational system would have been to start over, say with a new year zero (Ground Zero), starting with the Northern Winter Solstice of 1945, a sensible structure of weeks and months, and with years identified when necessary, as the appropriate number followed by say, BGZ, GZ, and PGZ (Letters

835:

First, I never wrote: ‘because there was no year zero.’ I think it was Dweller that wrote that, but I reverted it because there is a year zero in some systems. Second, you are NOT correct about the CE and AD being different names but not different calendars, you ignored the fact that people who

701:

Just because a year numbering system contains a year 0 does not mean one has to treat it as the first year of the first century. ISO 8601 does so, because that standard usually requires 4 digit years, so the first century can just be written "00". But astronomical year numbering is not a formal

1471:

I'm not defining it, I'm using the definitions of the words. "First" = with none before it. "Century" = 100 years. "AD" = those years included in the era labelled "anno domini". The "first century AD" is thus, by definition, the first 100 years labelled as being in the "anno domini" era. If it

1878:

Technically a century begins with the "01" year —– 1901, 2001, etc. — because there was no year 0. But in the popular consciousness, "turn of the century" means 1900, 2000, etc. That informal style is acceptable in references to celebrations, observances and social or cultural turning points.

945:

And your wrong about non-Catholics using the Gregorian calendar. Just stop trying, it’ll help your blood pressure if you accept that. For unknown reasons, Knowledge (XXG) blacklisted a source from usage which claims both Khajidha and Jc3s5h are incorrect when it comes to usage over calendars.

389:

The Scandinavian section makes assertions regarding "another system often used based on the hundreds part of the year", followed by examples in all but one language claimed to include such a system. While Icelandic is said to include this phenomenon as well, examples from it are conspicuously

1316:

Some quasi-official authorities, such as the United States Naval Observatory, have weighed in on the matter, but governments almost never have any official matter depend on when a century begins, in contrast to when a day or a year begins. This being the case, the presumption should be that

881:

Iamthemostwanted, you are quite simply WRONG about the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian calendar is not specifically Catholic or even Christian. It is the calendar used worldwide. It is used by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, etc for all int e national purposes.

2507:

employ the formal ordinal system, in each case along with the associated articles for each specific calendar period. This resulted in the present anomalous situation, with vernacular 0-to-9 decades which do not align with the formal 001-to-100 centuries and 0001-to-1000 millennia.

2246:

is sufficiently important that the position that centuries given names such twentieth century, twenty-first century, etc., and decades these centuries are composed of, begin in years ending in 00 and 0 respectively must be presented as a valid usage, and not as an outright error.

2711:"However, years prior to 1583 are not automatically allowed by the standard. Instead "values in the range through shall only be used by mutual agreement of the partners in information interchange."". Therefore, there is NO year 0 inside the range of definition of ISO 8601! 791:

began with the year 1 and ended with the year 100." This means the existence of the year zero is the cause of treating 0 as the first year of the first century. But the just because the year 0 exists doesn't force anyone to treat it as the first year of the first century.

1989:

The new edits indicate the only correct convention is for decades and centuries to start in years who's last two digits are 01, but the reliable sources in the article show that the convention of beginning them in years who's last two digits are "00" are also acceptable.

1640:

Use of the phrase "strict construction" implies this viewpoint is more rigorously correct than the other point of view, and the only reasons to reject this view would be that it is overly pedantic or too inconvenient. But arguments can be made the inventor of the AD era,

1128:

The term 'turn of the century' refers to a year that starts a new century. During the early 20th century, the term 'turn of the (20th) century' was designated to the year 1901, while in contemporary history, the term 'turn of the (21st) century' is designated to the year

2551:

The 20th (twentieth) century was a century that began on January 1, 1901 and ended on December 31, 2000. It was the tenth and final century of the 2nd millennium. It is distinct from the century known as the 1900s which began on January 1, 1900 and ended on December 31,

1532:

Really? So the years 1 AD through 524 AD do not exist? I think you are focusing too much on the introductory proposal and not enough on the system in actual usage. The first year (first as in actual chronological order) that is referred to as a year anno domini is 1 AD.

981:

Until either one of you provide a reliable source that claims I’m wrong, I will no longer respond. Like I said, it really surprises me that pedants get emotional over when a century begins/ends when the calendar is arbitrary and this time, who uses the calendar and who

1645:, if he had been told that in the 21s century the year would begin on January 1, and if he were asked when the first and last days of the 21st century were, might have answered that the first day would be 1 January 2000 and the last day would be 31 December 2100. 2978:

Quite simple: Lots pf people are unable to distinguish between a period/span of time (years, minutes seconds, ...) and a point in the time scala. Simply remember the temperature scale. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E576:7308:B00F:4DBB (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

1093:

882:

Traditionally, the two terms BC and AD have been used to refer to the teo eras. However, CE and BCE have been adopted by some to refer to the same two eras without making any implicit religious claims. They are simply two sets of terms for the same thing.--

1626:

My view is that there are two frequently-written-about views, described in the article. The article describes the point of view that the 21st century began 1 January 2001 as "strict construction of the Gregorian calendar". The viewpoint is supported by a

713:

As counterexample to the edit, a person might use year 1 as the first year of the first century in order to define centuries the same way many people do, but use astronomical year numbering to make the calculation of intervals that cross 1 January 1.

3057:, have traditionally used Roman numerals for the year of production, as shown on the final credits page, so currently this appears as MMXX. However, some producers of programmes for commercial channels have recently started to use Latin numerals. -- 1860:– with anything not well-known or well-understood to the public, the general rule is that an editor should try to avoid the choice of odd conventions altogether. A sidebar would cover cases where the convention question must be addressed directly. 367:- for example we had millennium / 21st century celebrations at 1.1.2000 rather than 1.1.2001 but the first convention is seen as more "correct" - I think because English-speaking culture is not exactly dominated by the scientifically inclined :) 1309:. I must admit I do not read Latin, and have not read the work bo Clavius, but I am not aware of any of the foundation documents of the Gregorian calendar addressing how to write years near AD 1, nor addressing when a century begins and ends. 1391:

Since there are no clear answers to these questions, there is nothing to stop anyone from considering the first century of the Incarnation, when using a calendar that begins on January 1, to comprise the years 1 BC to and including 99 AD.

2455:, as I am not the one in authority) is to permit any creator of an article to use whichever system s/he chooses, but whenever the choice makes a substantial difference in context, to make it clear which convention is being used and why. 2475:: There is no problem with the validity of “1960s”-style decades and “1900s”-style centuries, which are vernacular references, more concise and easier to understand than those used in the formal ordinal system. Both systems are valid, 1856:

20th century begins on ___ and ends on ___." That said, even though I speak and work as though there is a year zero, the editorial reality of the expansive scope of this encyclopedia demands that strict construction be the convention

1381:

Did Dionysius think of the year beginning on January 1, which was the first day of the year for many purposes in Rome when he lived, or did he think of it as August 29, which Greek astronomers and clerics used, in connection with the

1886:

If anyone has the complete MLA, AP, and Oxford manuals we can get a wider scope of how to deal with this, but again I suggest the tried-and-true principle to controversy of avoid whenever possible, explain/notate whenever necessary.

757:

This is simply a matter of who uses what calendar, I find it confusing why you don't think the first century should begin with the year 0 when it exists in the ISO calendar, and the Astronomical Year Numbering System, the calendar

2673:

I don't understand your introductory remark. Please explain how the initial responses of "No" or "Absolutely not", from several commenters, to the question posed at the head of this section are in any way different from your "No"?

2237:

Note that some consider the first decade of, for example, the twenty-first century to consist of the years 2001–2010, the second 2011–2020; and so on. Chicago defers to the preference of its authors in this matter. See also 8.71,

2479:. However, given the formal structure of the calendar as it exists, the terminologies of the differently-based usages are not logically interchangeable; this is the opening paragraph of the current Knowledge (XXG) article on “ 1868:"Note also that some consider the first decade of, for example, the twenty-first century to consist of the years 2001-10; the second, 20ll-20; and so on. Chicago defers to the preference of its authors in this matter." 2869:

The 19th century began on 1801-01-01 .... What the ISO 8601's century called "19" is is unclear from the standard excerpts above, but it is probably the 1900s (century), rather than the 19th century or 20th century. —

1317:

government agencies have not been empowered to rule on when a century begins, and any writing to that effect is merely the advice of the government employee authors (unless a clear-cut grant of authority can be found).

751:

Another point, if it has a year zero, why wouldn't the person be able to consider it the first year of the first century? You can't force people to begin with the year one just because the Gregorian calendar never had

410:

for birthday, means 100-year birthday). I fear I may be getting overly specific here, bottom line: I suggest Icelandic be left out of the languages mentioned, unless someone can find a source justifying its inclusion.

2076:

counted from a year ending on the digit 1 to a year which is a multiple of ten, like 1981-1990 rather than 1980-1989: In the end of the 1989 it was only 1989 years past and 1989 is not a multiple of ten as 1990 is.

1141:

The passage uses the present tense, "refers to a year". No reliable sources have been presented to show that people today think 1901 was the first year of the 20th century but 2000 was the first year of the 21st

2088:

century was 1-100, not 1-99. Perhaps others don't agree with my reason but others are not 100% correct with their interpretation that a century or decade may be counted based on the same hundreds or tens digit.

3003:

What is the standard and acceptable way of writing down the centuries? Are Latin numerals accepted? In some languages centuries are mostly written as the XXI century. How common this practice is in English?

781:

Neither Common Era nor Anno Domini are calendars. They two names for one system of numbering years. At least three calendars can be used with this year numbering system, Gregorian, Julian, and Revised Julian.

3035:

when a person has the same name as an immediate ancestor. So if John Smith has a son John Smith, the son would be John Smith Jr. If there were a grandson named John Smith, he would be John Smith III.

2037:

for decade. There are no guidelines and few people who use the "strict" form for decades. It may deserve mention, but the "odometer" convention is both used by the general public and by experts.

853:

The AD is based off the year Jesus was born, but that is a religious connotation. If you aren’t catholic, you’d most likely be using the CE and BCE versions and therefore, the common era calendar.

2986: 1101: 446: 465:

Because of cross-issues I was not fully aware of, I made something that may amount to a major edit, and so should have put a discussion section here. Please leave the article as is through the

2271:

January 1, 1900. We should, as you say, point that out in the article. I have never een the term "200th decade" used. I have only seen decades described using the "odometer" rule (eg 1920s).--

2856: 2820: 2712: 2371:, that is, the edits to restrict the standard use of decade and century are overly prescriptive rather than descriptive and do not follow common usage. I have been saying since 1998 when the 430:

I tried to add the abbreviation "c." for "century" to the article, but a bot immediately revereded the edit. A bug notification had no effect. Can perhaps an admin make the modification? --

2803:

So even though agreement with the data exchange partners is required to write "0000", the standard treats any century as beginning on January 1 of a year that is evenly divisible by 100.

2926:

I believe that the two passages I quoted, taken together, means that in ISO 8601-1:2019, the 19th century, comprising the years 1800 to and including 1899, would be expressed as "18".

2151:

If anyone doubts that terms like "the 20th century" are not common, or that the term is not defined in the way I mentioned, then I will provide reliable sources. There are plenty.--

226:

points out, other units of time shouldn't show up on the see also. I don't see the reason behind it though. It seems like a perfectly good reason to put it into the see also section

2819:

clear per Knowledge (XXG) article about the ISO 9601, that NO year zero exists in ISO 8601.It is simply outside the defintion range, there does not exist in the scope of ISO 8601.

2113:

requires that all non-fringe points of view be reported. BHB95's pronouncements are not recognized by Knowledge (XXG) because Knowledge (XXG) editors are not reliable sources.

2187:. Decades are either expressed in numerals or spelled out (as long as the century is clear) and lowercased. Chicago calls for no apostrophe to appear between the year and the 1338:

It was defined as starting with the year 1 AD. A century is defined as 100 years. The first century is thus, by these definitions, the years 1 - 100. It is basic counting. --

2837:

with.) The fact that 1985 changes to 19 for century precision shows that ISO 8601 means "the 1900s", not "the 19th century", which would be from around 1800 to around 1900.

1652:(Oxford, 1999 corrected reprinting 2003, p. 779–780, hypothesize that Dionysius may have begun the year in September for purposes of his Easter table, may have treated the 2173:

are easy enough to find; one is already cited in the article. But since the other position can be found in reliable sources, it must be presented too, in accordance with

1145:"Turn of the century" is often used in a vague sense. No reliable sources have been presented to show that people using this phrase intend to be precise to a single year. 2439:

Friends (and others if any) I am not voting on this, nor even debating it, because there is a simple reason that it has bogged down in all the supporters of rival ideas

929:

Read the Gregorian calendar article yourself. You'll see that it agrees that non-Catholics use it. And we aren't discussing its origins, we are discussing its usage. --

2529:

The article title is "Century", not "Nth century". All agree "the 1900s" and "the 20th century" are both centuries. The disagreement is whether they coincide exactly.

733:

is based off the incarnation of Jesus Christ, which makes it a very religious thing to base a calendar of. Athesits and non-catholics (Jewish, Greeks, etc.) use the

706:

There are many different calendars, the Gregorian calendar is not used by atheists and non-catholics, they use the CE calendar. NASA uses the astronomical calendar.)

1449:

Since the above is a bit complex, I will give a hypothetical interpretation that is consistent with everything we know. I'm setting the hypothesis off in italics.

1514:

Oh by the way the first year labeled AD was 525, in a cover letter that Dionysius wrote to accompany his table. (Bonnie Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens,

1045: 2907:

time scale unit (3.1.1.7) of 100 calendar years (3.1.2.21)duration (3.1.1.8), beginning with a year whose year number is divisible without remainder by 100

2704:"The astronomical year numbering and ISO 8601 systems both contain a year zero, so the first century begins with the year zero, rather than the year one." 1796:

There's nothing wrong with "strict construction", since it's sourceable. PS: For anyone not familiar with the debate and its background, see the article

2330:

Chicago can certainly be cited but is not dispositive and I suspect a thorough search of sources would show that interpretation to be in the minority? --

398:, which is a slightly more ambiguous term, in that it can mean both a century or an age of unspecified duration (so for example the Bronze Age is called 2449:

The fact that the Great Unwashed like to go by the most significant digits is tempting, but in the absence of official consensus is not authoritative.

2556:

The century of "the 1900s" could only be "the 20th century" in a calendar which started with a Year 0, but the present calendar starts with a Year 1.

742:

Many people whose religion is Catholic indeed say that this year is 2018 AD, but this does not mean everyone else uses it. See here for my evidence:

293:

It might be useful if we mention under 'non-ordinal naming' that Italians (and we too) for art-historical purposes use the century naming convention

1685:

the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100.

1414:

All of which is irrelevant to the fact that we are talking about the centuries AD. The first century AD cannot, by definition, include BC years. --

70: 702:

standard, and there is no convention I know of about when centuries begin or end when using astronomical year numbering. The edit summary states

2610:. The Nth century articles pick the most important events of the century but the selections are merely the opinions of Knowledge (XXG) editors. 2059:

I'm sorry, after looking at the diff, the ordinal (it would be unfair to call it "strict") form for decades should be further deprecated. —

2916:

Note 1 to entry: Century is also used to refer to an arbitrary duration of 100 years, however century is not used as such in this document.

1224:

Source for this? Never heard of that. Also, here is the link to any pedant who says the Gregorian calendar (falsely) began with the year 1:

3011: 2855:

2, 3 ... 9, and 10. The second ten people start at 11 and end at 20. And just as like, the first 1000 years start with 1 and end with 1000.

1030:. The Gregorian calendar was adopted by Turkey in 1926, by China in 1912, by Saudi Arabia in 2016. NONE of these are Catholic countries. -- 352: 1320:

So it really boils down to academics preferring one usage and the general public preferring a different usage, as with the word "ain't".

1472:

started earlier, it would not be 100 years in the AD era. If it started later, it would not be the first such grouping in the AD era. --

638: 587: 431: 374: 2990: 1105: 1027: 450: 322: 2860: 2824: 2716: 710:

I disagree. Atheists and non-catholics often use the Gregorian calendar, and NASA uses many different year notations, including AD.

2726:

I do not have an official published ISO 8601 document, due to the exorbitant cost. I do have a 2016 working draft which says in part

1811: 1737: 2135:

1900s is NOT exactly equal to the 20th century. If we all agree, can we just say that, using sources that are acceptable to all?--

1365: 492:

might remain, but your "clarification" is not a clarification, but a restatement in more obscure, and not more precise, terms. —

1933: 1879:

Articles dealing centrally with the calendar should mention the literal interpretation, but without belittling popular usage.

1273: 660: 278: 1046:

https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21711938-hauling-saudi-arabia-21st-century-saudi-arabia-adopts-gregorian

1016: 951: 919: 871: 767: 622: 1949:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1679:

Use only the strict interpretation. Why confuse an already confusing topic?? Perhaps add an example like this (provided by

2919: 2840:

There is widespread agreement that the first day of "the 1900s" was 1 January 1900 and the last day was 31 December 1999.

2795: 2695:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1909:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1589:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

445:

It is a pity that nobody was able to give an abbreviation for "century" in correspondence to k for kilo for thousnad!!!!!

390:

missing, and as a native Icelandic speaker I'm not aware of anything in our language resembling this. We do have the word

2896: 2734: 1375:

Did Dionysius intend AD 1 to be the first full year after the Incarnation, or the year in which the Incarnation occurred?

743: 78: 1596:

not clear that the sources aligned with the so-called "strict" view have any authority with which to impose strictness.

1212:

Because of this, a century will only include one year, the centennial year, that starts with the century's number (e.g.

583: 1821:

I would agree with the "strict usage" and "general usage" distinction, and that the article as it now stands is clear.

617:. Perhaps I should’ve been more clear before posting the difference between ‘popularly’ and ‘strictly’. My apologies. 263:. Please review the edit. There's not a whole bunch of new information, just a bit more nicely presented (hopefully). 690: 1293:(→‎Start and end in the Gregorian calendar: no, it's about how it was defined, thus it is the "strict construction") 1653: 1369: 1202: 656: 38: 2421: 2381: 1865:

For further reference, I only have the complete NYT and Chicago MOS for alternative takes on this. From Chicago:

1121: 1012: 947: 915: 867: 763: 682: 618: 1062:

According to the US Naval Observatory, the Gregorian calendar is "the civil calendar in use around the world". (

2815:

Added clause b and c in response to 2001:A61:BDB:C901:6D12:C993:6C2C:BD54's comments, 4 January 2020 19:29 UT.

1691: 1452: 306: 3015: 2707:

That is incorrect, ISO 8601 is only applicable for dates after the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, cf

356: 101:

Someone please clarify how the year 0 (in "astrononomical" calculation) would belong to the first century BC!

1611:

Leave as "strict construction", as it is based on the simple meanings of the words as strictly construed. --

642: 591: 435: 378: 3007: 2982: 1097: 697:

systems both contain a year zero, so the first century begins with the year zero, rather than the year one.

370: 266: 2874: 2659:

fact remove it. The consensus further was to use specific text and the edit materially changes from it.

2463: 2063: 2051: 537: 496: 416: 340: 326: 302: 1011:

until you provide a reliable source which would settle this dispute, not using an assertion. Until then.

227: 2954:"ISO 8601-1:2019(en), Date and time — Representations for information interchange — Part 1: Basic rules" 2664: 2349: 2335: 2276: 2156: 2140: 1808: 1734: 105: 2417: 2390: 2377: 1929: 1840: 469:

Ridvan (sp?) celebration (Say, around May 8 I will have time for this specific issue), as that is my

412: 336: 109: 2570:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a reliable source. In my experience all the "Nth century" articles are crap.

909:@Khajidha ‘Assertions’ differ from ‘facts’, do not mistakenly assume without proof. Please read the 3062: 2679: 2637: 2597: 2561: 2520: 2023: 1892: 1687: 734: 274: 1723: 1701: 1636:

Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100.

1616: 1569: 1538: 1505: 1477: 1419: 1383: 1343: 1282: 1251: 1182: 1168: 1071: 1053: 1035: 934: 910: 887: 836:

aren’t catholic do not use the Gregorian calendar. Like I told you last time, go see the article

730: 574: 241: 82: 2300:

disagrees with you. I will expand the quote to make this clearer. You misrepresent my position.

1451:

Dionysius used the same beginning of year date as the table he extended, the c. AD 390 table of

2871: 2504: 2500: 2459: 2372: 2109:

demands claims in articles be supported by reliable sources. When reliable sources disagree,

2060: 2048: 1785: 1748:

closer to the Sun in June and further away in December can be objectively disproven. Language

1642: 1361: 1357: 1306: 1298: 557: 546: 534: 493: 196: 2492: 2174: 2110: 259: 3054: 3040: 2953: 2931: 2845: 2808: 2660: 2615: 2575: 2534: 2398: 2345: 2331: 2305: 2272: 2252: 2170: 2152: 2136: 2118: 1995: 1976: 1803: 1757: 1729: 1709: 1665: 1601: 1573: 1523: 1491: 1461: 1433: 1397: 1328: 1235: 1153: 796: 719: 509: 489: 478: 1719: 614: 2496: 2093: 1923: 1836: 533:

have been added to the "See also" section; I'm not sure that's a good idea. Comments? —

488:

It's not a major edit. It's just misleading, where it isn't wrong. Something related to

1700:

We don't get to make the rules, we only get to report the positions taken by others. See

1378:

Did Dionysius think of the Incarnation as the Annunciation (May 25) or Nativity (Dec 25)?

1220:

Perhaps this statement is unnecessary, but the edit summary is unrelated to the change:

3058: 3027: 2675: 2633: 2606:

I don't agree with the dogmatic definition of the century. I don't see any citation to

2593: 2557: 2516: 2016: 1888: 1826: 1163:

I've always encountered "turn of the century" used in the vague way Jc3s5h mentions. --

270: 223: 2259:, expanded 23:44 UT due to misinterpretation of the shorter version by another editor. 2106: 744:

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1041/the-origin-and-history-of-the-bcece-dating-system/

633:

Well, it's not technically incorrect unless they specifically state "The 21st Century

3032: 1612: 1534: 1501: 1473: 1415: 1339: 1247: 1178: 1164: 1067: 1049: 1031: 930: 883: 237: 2629: 2585: 2544: 2480: 1968: 1776: 1628: 1562:

The consensus is to use the "strict usage" and "general usage" wording restored in

1267:, Khajidha made the following change, restoring an earlier version of the passage: 820: 550: 530: 526: 47: 17: 1063: 504:

I will check this later. You know, some promises are more important than others.

3036: 2927: 2841: 2804: 2611: 2571: 2530: 2394: 2301: 2248: 2114: 2082:

on. In the end of 1999 it was 1999 years past and 1999 is not a multiple of 100.

2006: 1991: 1972: 1753: 1705: 1680: 1661: 1597: 1519: 1487: 1457: 1429: 1393: 1324: 1301:

and the meaning was refined and fleshed out in contemporaneous writing, such as

1231: 1225: 1149: 792: 715: 505: 474: 298: 294: 86: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1372:. But there is uncertainty about what that year was. There are many questions. 1177:

Not to mention the fact that "was designated to" is simply incorrect English.--

2512: 2089: 837: 208: 156: 152: 148: 134: 113: 1822: 1797: 169: 3066: 3044: 3019: 2935: 2877: 2864: 2849: 2828: 2812: 2720: 2683: 2668: 2641: 2619: 2601: 2579: 2565: 2538: 2524: 2467: 2425: 2402: 2385: 2353: 2339: 2309: 2280: 2256: 2160: 2144: 2122: 2097: 2066: 2054: 2027: 1999: 1980: 1937: 1896: 1844: 1830: 1816: 1789: 1761: 1742: 1713: 1695: 1669: 1620: 1605: 1542: 1527: 1509: 1495: 1481: 1465: 1437: 1423: 1401: 1347: 1332: 1239: 1186: 1172: 1157: 1075: 1057: 1039: 1020: 955: 938: 923: 875: 800: 771: 723: 664: 646: 626: 595: 573:

The section which makes assertions about the numbering of centuries in the

562: 540: 513: 499: 482: 454: 439: 420: 382: 360: 344: 330: 310: 282: 244: 230: 91: 1657: 1500:

I need to produce a reliable source for the basic definitions of words?--

694: 1971:

titled "RfC: Describing positions about the beginning of centuries AD"?

1752:

a popularity contest and can't be disproven with logic or measurements.

1486:

Since you have failed to produce a reliable source I will start an RfC.

466: 202: 117: 2592:. What exactly is it you don't like about the "Nth century" articles? 2214:

expression "the teens" should be avoided, at least in formal contexts.

2219:

the first decade of the twenty-first century (or the years 2000–2009)

1835:

I agree with the distinction. The article is clear as it stands now.

174: 121: 1922:, the disputed edits are not in accordance with the March 2019 RFC.— 1303:

Romani calendarii a Gregorio XIII. P. M. restituti explicatio (1603)

605:

I wanted to address this change to avoid confusion like this here:

1368:. The definition of AD 1 is the year Dionysius chose to honor the 214: 144: 2487:

which began on January 1, 2000, and will end on December 31, 2099

759: 180: 125: 1955:

RFC: Are August 2019 edits in accord with March 2019 RFC above?

3050: 2893: 2731: 190: 185: 25: 2833:

I expanded the quote to add material that helps interpret it.

1555:

RfC: Describing positions about the beginning of centuries AD

1285:, the 1st century AD began with 1 AD and ended with 100 AD... 3049:

In the UK, all British-made programmes for television, both

2043: 2891:

I found a preview of ISO 8601-1. It contains this passage:

2344:

Perhaps its best for me to wait for your expanded quote.--

1386:, and which was used in the table that Dionysius extended? 866:

Second, of course they CAN use a year zero, if they want.

1518:, Oxford, 1999 reprinted with corrections 2003, p. 779). 2708: 77:

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join

1964: 1960: 1563: 1264: 1198: 1118: 679: 606: 1360:

was intended to change the year numbering invented by

2913:

The 19th century covers the years 1800 through 1899.

1648:

Bonnie Blackburn & Leofranc Holford-Strevens, in

1133:

I object to this passage for the following reasons:

2499:employing the “1960s” type decades, while both the 2181:17th ed. (2017) in section 9.33 ("Decades") states 737:

and actually use the terms CE/BCE instead of AD/BC.

235:

Maybe navigation templates might be a good idea? --

1026:Maybe it's blacklisted because it isn't true? See 821:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bce 2451:What I suggest (but don't bother to argue with 1633: 1560: 1291: 1269: 914:that non-Catholics use the Gregorian calendar. 685:restored a passage which I consider illogical: 394:, which means 100 years and is synonymous with 85:for a list of articles that need improving. -- 2743:month, a year or a century, as set out below. 2222:the second decade of the twenty-first century 1428:You have no authority to define a century AD. 1064:http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/calendars.php 2739:4.1.2.3 Representations with reduced accuracy 1259:March 2019 edit about "strict" and definition 1226:http://time.com/4462775/bc-ad-dating-history/ 8: 2960:. International Standards Organization. 2019 2632:" article. I've now edited it to show that. 674:Disagree with logic in edit regarding year 0 1216:00 was the last year of the 19th century). 655:Ok? I don't know where your going there... 3005: 2980: 1095: 368: 2491:A number of comments here have mentioned 2543:The current Knowledge (XXG) article on “ 2107:The Knowledge (XXG) verifiability policy 2945: 1323:I have edited the article accordingly. 1279:According to the strict construction of 813: 2987:2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E576:7308:B00F:4DBB 2012: 1297:The Gregorian calendar was defined in 1102:2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E576:7308:B00F:4DBB 447:2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E576:7308:B00F:4DBB 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2857:2001:A61:BDB:C901:6D12:C993:6C2C:BD54 2821:2001:A61:BDB:C901:6D12:C993:6C2C:BD54 2713:2001:A61:BDB:C901:6D12:C993:6C2C:BD54 7: 1945:The following discussion is closed. 1629:citation to the US Naval Observatory 1583:The following discussion is closed. 1208:The third edit deletes the sentence 1044:Here's the source for Saudi Arabia. 549:covers those just fine, I think. — 1028:Adoption of the Gregorian calendar 253:Redo 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 199:(fifteen years in Roman fiscality) 71:WikiProject Time assessment rating 24: 2709:https://en.wikipedia.org/ISO_8601 1905:The discussion above is closed. 1272:As some authorities, such as the 2691:The discussion above is closed. 2175:the neutral point-of-view policy 2111:the neutral point-of-view policy 1650:The Oxford Companion to the Year 1516:The Oxford Companion to the Year 29: 1274:United States Naval Observatory 890:) 10:45, 11 May 2018 (year UTC) 2684:18:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 2669:03:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) 2642:17:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC) 2620:01:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC) 2602:22:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 2580:19:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 2566:19:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 2539:18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 2525:18:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 1193:Edits by Iamthemostwanted2015x 383:19:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 335:Dumb question removed. Sorry. 331:07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 316:Scandinavians and the first 99 1: 2661:Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) 2468:09:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 2426:20:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 2403:19:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 2386:19:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 2354:23:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2340:23:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2310:23:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2281:23:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2257:23:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2161:22:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2145:20:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2123:17:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2098:15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 1801: 1727: 1576:) 08:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC) 627:16:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC) 596:23:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC) 455:08:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 361:19:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC) 283:06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1938:22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC) 1356:There is no indication that 584:proleptic Gregorian calendar 345:05:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 311:12:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 92:11:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 2936:20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC) 2878:19:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC) 2865:19:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC) 2850:19:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC) 2829:19:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC) 2813:17:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC) 2721:12:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC) 2067:23:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 2055:23:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 2028:22:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 2000:19:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 1981:19:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 691:astronomical year numbering 569:Gregorian Calendar section. 563:10:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 541:10:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 3085: 2416:rather than descriptive. 2015:but don't link an edit. -- 1845:22:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 1831:15:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 1817:07:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 1790:14:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC) 1762:01:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 1743:08:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 1714:14:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC) 1696:13:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC) 1654:Incarnation (Christianity) 1370:Incarnation (Christianity) 1203:User:Iamthemostwanted2015x 647:01:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC) 514:18:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 500:18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC) 483:17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC) 440:17:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 421:23:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC) 406:which consists of öld and 245:05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 3067:23:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 3045:20:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC) 3020:10:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC) 2752:YYYY-MM Example: 1985-04 2196:the 1940s and the 1950s ( 1897:23:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC) 1670:21:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1621:20:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1606:20:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1543:20:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1528:20:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1510:20:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1496:20:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1482:20:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1466:20:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1438:20:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1424:20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1402:20:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1348:19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1333:18:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1240:13:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC) 1122:User:Iamthemostwanted2015 665:20:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC) 3026:I can't recall if using 2700:ISO 8601 and "year zero" 2693:Please do not modify it. 2169:Sources that agree with 1947:Please do not modify it. 1907:Please do not modify it. 1586:Please do not modify it. 1453:Theophilus of Alexandria 1289:The edit summary stated 1187:20:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC) 1173:20:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC) 1158:19:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC) 1076:11:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 1058:11:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 1040:11:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 1021:11:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 956:11:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 939:11:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 924:11:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 876:09:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 801:03:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 772:21:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 724:20:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 577:is incorrect. There are 231:02:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2208:the forties and fifties 2179:Chicago Manual of Style 257:I came across this and 2958:Open Browsing Platform 2776:c) A specific century 2628:is reference in the " 2477:within their own terms 2013:this edit to "Century" 1965:this edit to "Century" 1918:The consensus is that 1881: 1870: 1638: 1578: 1295: 1287: 1229: 1218: 1131: 708: 699: 1961:this edit to "Decade" 1876: 1866: 1222: 1210: 1126: 1023:Iamthemostwanted2015 1009:Do not revert my edit 926:Iamthemostwanted2015 878:Iamthemostwanted2015 704: 687: 657:Iamthemostwanted2015x 629:Iamthemostwanted2015 114:10 years - millennium 42:of past discussions. 2746:a) A specific month 2493:Knowledge (XXG):NPOV 1124:added this passage: 1013:Iamthemostwanted2015 958:Iamthemostwanted2015 948:Iamthemostwanted2015 916:Iamthemostwanted2015 868:Iamthemostwanted2015 774:Iamthemostwanted2015 764:Iamthemostwanted2015 683:Iamthemostwanted2015 667:Iamthemostwanted2015 619:Iamthemostwanted2015 137:(ka/Ka) - 10e3 years 2767:YYYY Example: 1985 2761:b) A specific year 2626:Scientific American 2608:Scientific American 2590:Scientific American 2200:the 1940s and '50s) 2041:for centuries; per 1967:in accord with the 1656:as synonymous with 1113:Turn of the century 735:Common Era calendar 222:I excised this, as 2230:the years 2010–19) 2198:or, less formally, 1948: 1283:Gregorian calendar 911:Gregorian calendar 731:Gregorian calendar 575:Gregorian Calendar 522:Specific centuries 118:10 years - century 3022: 3010:comment added by 2994: 2985:comment added by 2924: 2923: 2800: 2799: 2505:List of millennia 2501:List of centuries 2373:year 2000 problem 1946: 1936: 1643:Dionysius Exiguus 1362:Dionysius Exiguus 1358:Inter gravissimas 1307:Christoph Clavius 1299:Inter gravissimas 1199:a series of edits 1109: 1100:comment added by 547:List of centuries 385: 373:comment added by 285: 269:comment added by 122:10 years - decade 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3076: 2970: 2969: 2967: 2965: 2950: 2894: 2790:Extended format: 2771:Extended format: 2756:Extended format: 2732: 2624:The citation to 2588:" article cites 2046: 2019: 2010: 1928: 1815: 1741: 1588: 1197:I have reverted 823: 818: 560: 554: 490:Swedish language 264: 79:WikiProject Time 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3084: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3001: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2963: 2961: 2952: 2951: 2947: 2792:not applicable 2773:not applicable 2758:not applicable 2702: 2697: 2696: 2547:” states that: 2497:List of decades 2418:Robert McClenon 2391:Robert McClenon 2378:Robert McClenon 2042: 2017: 2004: 1969:March RFC above 1957: 1951: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1913: 1631:, which states 1584: 1579: 1557: 1261: 1195: 1115: 828: 827: 826: 819: 815: 676: 603: 571: 558: 552: 524: 463: 428: 318: 291: 255: 211:(ten centuries) 166: 126:10 years - year 106:10 years - aeon 99: 75: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3082: 3080: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3028:Roman numerals 3012:85.117.126.192 3000: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2972: 2971: 2944: 2943: 2939: 2922: 2921: 2918: 2906: 2901: 2898: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2838: 2834: 2798: 2797: 2794: 2736: 2730: 2729: 2727: 2701: 2698: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2555: 2548: 2509: 2490: 2484: 2470: 2456: 2450: 2448: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2346:-- Work permit 2342: 2332:-- Work permit 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2273:-- Work permit 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2235: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2220: 2215: 2211: 2209: 2206: 2201: 2194: 2192: 2164: 2163: 2153:-- Work permit 2148: 2147: 2137:-- Work permit 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2101: 2100: 2084: 2083: 2078: 2077: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2035:ABSOLUTELY NOT 2032: 2031: 2030: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1943: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1912: 1911: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1883: 1882: 1872: 1871: 1862: 1861: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1688:Peter K Burian 1624: 1623: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1559: 1558: 1556: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1512: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1384:Diocletian era 1379: 1376: 1351: 1350: 1260: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1194: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1175: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1139: 1114: 1111: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1060: 1042: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 943: 942: 941: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 825: 824: 812: 811: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 785: 784: 783: 782: 776: 775: 754: 753: 748: 747: 739: 738: 675: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 650: 649: 602: 599: 570: 567: 566: 565: 523: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 462: 459: 458: 457: 427: 424: 388: 364: 363: 353:84.219.168.196 317: 314: 290: 287: 254: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 228:132.205.45.148 224:User:LimoWreck 219: 218: 212: 206: 200: 194: 193:(undetermined) 188: 183: 178: 172: 165: 162: 161: 160: 141: 140: 139: 138: 129: 128: 110:10 years - eon 98: 95: 74: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3081: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3029: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 2999:Writing style 2998: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2977: 2976: 2959: 2955: 2949: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2917: 2914: 2911: 2908: 2905: 2899: 2895: 2892: 2879: 2876: 2873: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2817: 2816: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2801: 2793: 2791: 2787: 2785: 2781: 2780:Basic format: 2777: 2774: 2772: 2768: 2766: 2765:Basic format: 2762: 2759: 2757: 2753: 2751: 2750:Basic format: 2747: 2744: 2740: 2737: 2733: 2728: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2705: 2699: 2694: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2657: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2553: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2488: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2471: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2454: 2445: 2444: 2441:slooowly and 2438: 2435: 2434: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2374: 2370: 2367: 2366: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2245: 2242: 2236: 2234: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2212: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2202: 2199: 2195: 2193: 2190: 2186: 2183: 2182: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2130: 2129: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2086: 2085: 2080: 2079: 2074: 2073: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2045: 2040: 2036: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2014: 2008: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1954: 1950: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1921: 1910: 1908: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1885: 1884: 1880: 1874: 1873: 1869: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1854: 1853: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1806: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1779: 1773: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1739: 1736: 1733: 1732: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1646: 1644: 1637: 1632: 1630: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1590: 1587: 1581: 1580: 1577: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1565: 1554: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1456: 1454: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1390: 1385: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1373: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1284: 1280: 1277: 1275: 1268: 1266: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1221: 1217: 1215: 1209: 1206: 1204: 1200: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1125: 1123: 1120: 1112: 1110: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 957: 953: 949: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 927: 925: 921: 917: 912: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 889: 885: 880: 879: 877: 873: 869: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 839: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 822: 817: 814: 810: 802: 798: 794: 789: 788: 787: 786: 780: 779: 778: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 756: 755: 750: 749: 745: 741: 740: 736: 732: 728: 727: 726: 725: 721: 717: 711: 707: 703: 698: 696: 692: 686: 684: 681: 673: 666: 662: 658: 654: 653: 652: 651: 648: 644: 640: 639:219.88.68.195 636: 632: 631: 630: 628: 624: 620: 616: 611: 607: 601:February 2018 600: 598: 597: 593: 589: 588:219.88.68.195 585: 580: 576: 568: 564: 561: 556: 555: 548: 545: 544: 543: 542: 539: 536: 532: 528: 521: 515: 511: 507: 503: 502: 501: 498: 495: 491: 487: 486: 485: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 443: 442: 441: 437: 433: 432:95.208.230.48 425: 423: 422: 418: 414: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 386: 384: 380: 376: 375:85.237.234.47 372: 362: 358: 354: 349: 348: 347: 346: 342: 338: 333: 332: 328: 324: 315: 313: 312: 308: 304: 303:B. Jankuloski 300: 296: 288: 286: 284: 280: 276: 272: 268: 262: 261: 252: 246: 243: 240: 239: 234: 233: 232: 229: 225: 221: 220: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 198: 195: 192: 189: 187: 184: 182: 179: 176: 173: 171: 168: 167: 163: 158: 154: 150: 146: 143: 142: 136: 133: 132: 131: 130: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 104: 103: 102: 96: 94: 93: 90: 89: 84: 81:or visit the 80: 72: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3006:— Preceding 3002: 2981:— Preceding 2962:. Retrieved 2957: 2948: 2940: 2925: 2915: 2912: 2909: 2903: 2902: 2890: 2872:Arthur Rubin 2789: 2788: 2783: 2779: 2778: 2775: 2770: 2769: 2764: 2763: 2760: 2755: 2754: 2749: 2748: 2745: 2741: 2738: 2706: 2703: 2692: 2630:21st century 2625: 2607: 2589: 2586:21st century 2550: 2545:20th century 2485: 2481:21st century 2476: 2472: 2460:JonRichfield 2452: 2442: 2440: 2436: 2368: 2297: 2243: 2227: 2223: 2203: 2197: 2188: 2184: 2178: 2131: 2061:Arthur Rubin 2049:Arthur Rubin 2038: 2034: 1986: 1958: 1944: 1924: 1919: 1906: 1904: 1877: 1867: 1857: 1804: 1780: 1777: 1749: 1730: 1684: 1649: 1647: 1639: 1634: 1625: 1594: 1585: 1582: 1568: 1561: 1515: 1450: 1448: 1366:Easter table 1322: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1302: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1278: 1271: 1270: 1262: 1230: 1223: 1219: 1213: 1211: 1207: 1196: 1148: 1132: 1127: 1116: 1096:— Preceding 1092: 1008: 816: 808: 712: 709: 705: 700: 688: 677: 634: 609: 604: 578: 572: 551: 535:Arthur Rubin 531:21st century 527:20th century 525: 494:Arthur Rubin 470: 464: 429: 426:Abbreviation 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 369:— Preceding 365: 334: 323:76.120.66.57 319: 292: 258: 256: 236: 205:(five years) 164:old See also 100: 87: 76: 60: 43: 37: 18:Talk:Century 2226:the 2010s ( 2171:Work permit 1858:when needed 1805:SMcCandlish 1731:SMcCandlish 1276:, interpret 461:Major Edit? 404:aldarafmæli 299:Cinquecento 295:Quatrocento 265:—Preceding 177:(ten years) 83:Time Portal 36:This is an 2941:References 2513:User:BHB95 2191:(see 7.15) 1925:S Marshall 1875:From NYT: 1837:JohnThorne 1007:@Khajidha 838:Common Era 809:References 413:Juliusthor 400:Bronsöldin 337:Breadbelly 321:something? 209:Millennium 157:giga-annum 153:mega-annum 149:kilo-annum 135:kilo-annum 97:Discussion 3059:Blurryman 2964:4 January 2910:EXAMPLE: 2676:Blurryman 2634:Blurryman 2594:Blurryman 2558:Blurryman 2517:Blurryman 2132:Both uses 1889:SamuelRiv 1798:Year zero 1724:WP:FRINGE 1718:See also 1702:WP:WEIGHT 1564:this edit 1265:this edit 1119:this edit 680:this edit 473:religion. 392:árhundruð 271:MCCRogers 170:Centuries 61:Archive 1 3008:unsigned 2983:unsigned 2900:3.1.2.23 2784:Example: 2503:and the 2011:You say 1613:Khajidha 1535:Khajidha 1502:Khajidha 1474:Khajidha 1416:Khajidha 1340:Khajidha 1313:either. 1248:Khajidha 1179:Khajidha 1165:Khajidha 1142:century. 1098:unsigned 1068:Khajidha 1050:Khajidha 1032:Khajidha 982:doesn’t. 931:Khajidha 884:Khajidha 729:No, the 695:ISO 8601 371:unsigned 289:"-cento" 279:contribs 267:unsigned 260:was bold 197:indictio 2904:century 2437:COMMENT 2298:Chicago 2244:Chicago 2185:Decades 1364:in his 610:Popular 553:Reatlas 471:natural 301:etc. -- 203:lustrum 155:(Ma) - 151:(ka) - 73:comment 39:archive 3037:Jc3s5h 3033:suffix 2928:Jc3s5h 2875:(talk) 2842:Jc3s5h 2805:Jc3s5h 2612:Jc3s5h 2572:Jc3s5h 2531:Jc3s5h 2443:loudly 2395:Jc3s5h 2302:Jc3s5h 2249:Jc3s5h 2177:. The 2115:Jc3s5h 2064:(talk) 2052:(talk) 2044:Jc3s5h 2020:rose64 2007:Jc3s5h 1992:Jc3s5h 1973:Jc3s5h 1754:Jc3s5h 1720:WP:NOR 1706:Jc3s5h 1681:Jc3s5h 1662:Jc3s5h 1598:Jc3s5h 1570:Cunard 1520:Jc3s5h 1488:Jc3s5h 1458:Jc3s5h 1430:Jc3s5h 1394:Jc3s5h 1325:Jc3s5h 1232:Jc3s5h 1150:Jc3s5h 793:Jc3s5h 762:uses. 716:Jc3s5h 615:WP:IRS 559:(talk) 538:(talk) 506:Julzes 497:(talk) 475:Julzes 467:Baha'i 408:afmæli 402:, but 217:(year) 175:decade 147:(a) - 88:Yamara 2584:The " 2552:1999. 2238:9.64. 2090:BHB95 2047:. — 1658:birth 1129:2000. 238:Kjoon 215:annum 145:annum 16:< 3063:talk 3053:and 3041:talk 3016:talk 2991:talk 2966:2020 2932:talk 2861:talk 2846:talk 2825:talk 2809:talk 2717:talk 2680:talk 2665:talk 2638:talk 2616:talk 2598:talk 2576:talk 2562:talk 2535:talk 2521:talk 2464:talk 2422:talk 2399:talk 2382:talk 2350:talk 2336:talk 2306:talk 2277:talk 2253:talk 2157:talk 2141:talk 2119:talk 2094:talk 2024:talk 2022:🌹 ( 1996:talk 1977:talk 1963:and 1959:Are 1893:talk 1841:talk 1827:talk 1823:Jzsj 1786:Talk 1778:Star 1758:talk 1710:talk 1692:talk 1666:talk 1617:talk 1602:talk 1574:talk 1539:talk 1524:talk 1506:talk 1492:talk 1478:talk 1462:talk 1434:talk 1420:talk 1398:talk 1344:talk 1329:talk 1281:the 1252:talk 1236:talk 1183:talk 1169:talk 1154:talk 1106:talk 1072:talk 1066:) -- 1054:talk 1036:talk 1017:talk 952:talk 935:talk 920:talk 888:talk 872:talk 797:talk 768:talk 760:NASA 720:talk 693:and 689:The 661:talk 643:talk 623:talk 592:talk 529:and 510:talk 479:talk 451:talk 436:talk 417:talk 379:talk 357:talk 341:talk 327:talk 307:talk 275:talk 181:aeon 159:(Ga) 3055:ITV 3051:BBC 2786:19 2782:YY 2018:Red 1987:No. 1814:😼 1781:HOG 1740:😼 1726:). 1683:): 1533:--- 1305:by 1263:In 1201:by 1117:In 752:it. 678:In 396:öld 242:lee 191:era 186:eon 3065:) 3043:) 3031:a 3018:) 2993:) 2956:. 2934:) 2920:” 2897:“ 2863:) 2848:) 2827:) 2811:) 2796:” 2735:“ 2719:) 2682:) 2667:) 2640:) 2618:) 2600:) 2578:) 2564:) 2554:" 2537:) 2523:) 2489:. 2483:”: 2473:NO 2466:) 2453:me 2424:) 2401:) 2384:) 2369:No 2352:) 2338:) 2308:) 2279:) 2255:) 2228:or 2224:or 2204:or 2159:) 2143:) 2121:) 2096:) 2039:No 2026:) 1998:) 1979:) 1920:no 1895:) 1843:) 1829:) 1802:— 1788:) 1760:) 1750:is 1728:— 1712:) 1704:. 1694:) 1668:) 1619:) 1604:) 1541:) 1526:) 1508:) 1494:) 1480:) 1464:) 1436:) 1422:) 1400:) 1346:) 1331:) 1238:) 1214:19 1185:) 1171:) 1156:) 1108:) 1074:) 1056:) 1048:-- 1038:) 1019:) 954:) 937:) 922:) 874:) 799:) 770:) 722:) 663:) 645:) 635:AD 625:) 608:. 594:) 579:no 512:) 481:) 453:) 438:) 419:) 381:) 359:) 343:) 329:) 309:) 297:, 281:) 277:• 124:– 120:– 116:– 112:– 108:– 3061:( 3039:( 3014:( 2989:( 2968:. 2930:( 2859:( 2844:( 2823:( 2807:( 2715:( 2678:( 2663:( 2636:( 2614:( 2596:( 2574:( 2560:( 2549:" 2533:( 2519:( 2462:( 2420:( 2397:( 2380:( 2348:( 2334:( 2304:( 2275:( 2251:( 2189:s 2155:( 2139:( 2117:( 2092:( 2009:: 2005:@ 1994:( 1975:( 1934:C 1932:/ 1930:T 1891:( 1839:( 1825:( 1812:¢ 1809:☏ 1784:( 1756:( 1738:¢ 1735:☏ 1708:( 1690:( 1664:( 1615:( 1600:( 1572:( 1566:. 1537:( 1522:( 1504:( 1490:( 1476:( 1460:( 1432:( 1418:( 1396:( 1342:( 1327:( 1254:) 1250:( 1234:( 1181:( 1167:( 1152:( 1104:( 1070:( 1052:( 1034:( 1015:( 950:( 933:( 918:( 886:( 870:( 840:. 795:( 766:( 746:. 718:( 659:( 641:( 621:( 590:( 586:. 508:( 477:( 449:( 434:( 415:( 377:( 355:( 339:( 325:( 305:( 273:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index