351:. Notable. With regard to what Astrotrain and some others have said, the article points out that "Year 10,000" is a "collective" name for multiple issues concerning the usage of dates now and into the future. Even if a completely new calendar system were invented, it would not change the issue. You can suggest a different title and/or redirect names if you wish, but the article's subject matter is encyclopedic.
304:, the year 10,000 problem doesn't become a problem in year 9999. We may find a need to express dates in the future with five digits sooner than we think (astronomers and other scientists certainly already have the problem). Fortunately, date standards anticipate this problem, and specify how five digit years should be expressed. —
336:
Of course we should not create those, that would be original research. Year 10000 problem is encyclopedia material simply because it is discussed widely and is a notable, real problem. That some voters here have never heard of it before, and outright dismiss it as a joke without attempting to verify
459:, software has problems representing dates in the far past and the far future, which is problematic for scientists, sociologists, archeologists, and others who try to construct computer models of past and future events. This really is not a joke, the article's subject matter is encyclopedic.
40:(ie that computer software will not recognise the new year with five digits and crash). I think that this article is just being a bit silly and should be deleted. It is very premature to assume a problem 8000 years in the future. I think that most software will be updated by this time
442:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.
274:
Delete. Pure nonsense. A short aside can be mentioned on the "millenium bug" page. It's really telling the amount of keep votes for this, compared to more humdrum topics that narrowly avoid deletion.
93:
Keep. yes redwordsmith it was mentioned in the article that it got some funny publcity. but its not as if the article is a mere stub, it is actually pretty good. i learned something ;-) YEEHAH
386:. Just because it was presented as a joke doesn't always mean that it's always a joke. Some bloke's computer is going to crash in the year 10,000 if we delete it now. ;) Btw, the satellite
33:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.
267:. Meaningless speculation that won't have any impact on the lives of anybody here, or our children, or our grandchildren, or our great-grandchildren...
188:. It's a real issue, even if it's far off in the future. If there were a way to merge it with Y2k under a suitable title, that might be ok too. --
114:
article. There's no need to put this here, or to have it as a "problem." Let posterity finally recode their databases to get rid of the COBOL.
428:. Verifiable and factually accurate. What a gross misuse of VfD! What a gross waste of all of our time. --] 13:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
257:
It's not a real problem, but it's a good little joke, and probably something that comes up in conversation every once in a while. -
121:
Keep, valid topic in an academic sense, and has been discussed even in "pop culture", so an encyclopedic article can be written.
17:
314:
Yes, its a real problem, chmod007 (keyloggers will love this one) makes a good point. I also got a few really good laughs
137:
368:- clearly a joke, but worth preserving in BJAODN particularly for the link to RFC2550, published as already noted on
329:? How do we know that the current system of using the birth of Jesus as year zero will continue in 8,000 years time?
418:, encyclopædic; useful. I'd like to see the COBOL joke in there though (kidding). Definitely useful though. --
110:
Delete: An important concept for the year 9999. Not now. The academic discussion would be appropriate in the
68:
A silly waste of electrons, nothing anyone will search for, a wankfest, but essentially harmless if incorrect.
373:
326:
294:, it's typical of a certain class of easily avoidable problems caused by lack of imagination and foresight.
55:
322:
209:
330:
41:
401:
315:
199:
26:
29:
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion.
77:
52:
383:
87:
37:
295:
179:
130:
283:
104:
465:
409:
357:
248:
305:
258:
234:
169:
149:
73:
391:
268:
36:
Article relates to a potenital software problem in the year 10,000 similar to the
435:
189:
125:
122:
115:
405:
275:
101:
94:
168:, imaginary. Mathematical issues are or can be discussed in the Y2K article.
460:
419:
352:
244:
338:
216:
159:
62:
390:
will return to Earth in the year 52006, so think ahead, guys... =) --
233:. Give Dr. Zaius a little info about past human short-sightedness.
400:
and I note edits have shown direct relevance to the article-worthy
148:. It's a great topic. We don't want Wikipidia to be too dry. —
387:
111:
86:- RFC 2550 was published on April 1. It's a joke, people. -
51:: valid idea and well-founded worry deserves an article. --
434:. We must save this information for our children!
227:. Heard about it before--] 18:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8:
61:Keep. A real topic; article (barely) OK.
337:the article, is no reason for deletion.
243:. It is a joke, but a notable joke :).
215:Oops, I wasn't logged in. (delete) --
7:
24:
382:. Valid subject and on par with
158:. Clearly encyclopedic article.
100:Keep, valid discussion topic.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
445:Please do not edit this page
31:This page is no longer live.
198:. It's not a real problem.
484:
470:15:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
333:20:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
318:19:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
261:21:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
212:18:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
142:05:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
438:19:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
422:05:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
412:05:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
394:14:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
376:12:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
362:08:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
341:08:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
308:16:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
298:13:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
288:01:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
271:00:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
251:20:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
237:19:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
219:18:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
202:17:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
192:16:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
182:12:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
178:. Meaningless fiction.
172:09:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
162:08:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
152:07:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
118:04:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
107:23:37, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
90:23:24, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
44:22:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
327:Year 10,000,000 problem
97:23:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
80:23:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
65:23:19, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
58:22:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
321:So should we create a
323:Year 100,000 problem
208:. Speculation. --
408:(also a category).
402:Long Now Foundation
374:Francisco Del Piero
27:Year 10,000 problem
384:Year 2000 problem
38:Year 2000 problem
475:
468:
463:
360:
355:
282:
140:
135:
128:
483:
482:
478:
477:
476:
474:
473:
472:
466:
461:
453:
358:
353:
280:
138:
131:
126:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
481:
479:
452:
449:
440:
439:
429:
423:
413:
404:and of course
395:
377:
363:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
309:
299:
289:
272:
262:
252:
238:
228:
222:
221:
220:
203:
200:Stephen Turner
193:
183:
173:
163:
153:
143:
119:
108:
98:
91:
81:
66:
59:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
480:
471:
469:
464:
458:
450:
448:
446:
437:
433:
430:
427:
424:
421:
417:
414:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
375:
371:
367:
364:
361:
356:
350:
347:
340:
335:
334:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
317:
313:
310:
307:
303:
300:
297:
293:
290:
287:
286:
279:
278:
273:
270:
266:
263:
260:
256:
253:
250:
246:
242:
239:
236:
232:
229:
226:
223:
218:
214:
213:
211:
210:216.20.234.60
207:
204:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
141:
136:
134:
129:
123:
120:
117:
113:
109:
106:
103:
99:
96:
92:
89:
85:
82:
79:
75:
71:
67:
64:
60:
57:
54:
53:Whosyourjudas
50:
47:
46:
45:
43:
39:
34:
32:
28:
19:
456:
454:
444:
441:
431:
425:
415:
397:
379:
369:
365:
348:
311:
306:David Remahl
301:
291:
284:
276:
264:
254:
240:
230:
224:
205:
195:
185:
175:
165:
155:
145:
132:
88:RedWordSmith
83:
69:
48:
35:
30:
25:
296:Kim Bruning
406:Futurology
331:Astrotrain
42:Astrotrain
457:right now
410:Samaritan
370:1st April
451:Comments
372:1999. --
259:Lifefeed
235:Terrapin
170:Gazpacho
150:Monedula
74:jpgordon
392:Andylkl
269:Bearcat
467:(talk)
436:Fishal
366:Delete
359:(talk)
265:Delete
206:Delete
196:Delete
190:Improv
176:Delete
166:Delete
116:Geogre
84:Delete
56:(talk)
455:Even
398:Keep,
325:or a
316:McKay
277:zoney
255:Keep.
95:Wifki
16:<
462:func
432:Keep
426:Keep
420:mjec
416:Keep
380:Keep
354:func
349:Keep
312:Keep
302:Keep
292:Keep
285:talk
249:talk
245:Thue
241:Keep
231:Keep
225:Keep
186:Keep
156:Keep
146:Keep
127:siro
102:Rick
78:gab}
72:. --
70:Keep
49:keep
388:Keo
339:jni
217:WOT
180:GWO
160:jni
112:Y2K
63:Gdr
447:.
247:|
281:♣
139:o
133:χ
124:—
105:K
76:{
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.