401:
problem. There will be a controversy whether to use 4, 5 even 6 digits because some people do have data for predictions that far ahead and there will be a problem. There may even be some people producing equipment that is needed to last this long (nuclear repositories, space craft leaving the solar system), so there may be people alread having to deal with the Y10K problem - bit of a bummer since the world ends this century when all the fossil fuel runs out - but we can't all predict the future!
747:- I've done a first pass cleanup. I'm a bit inclusionist so please edit away. New references are the Kermit daemon (I suspect jokingly) reserves a leading blank for Y10K in the database date field (have added a reference for that). The g77 runtime also refer to the problem (have added a reference). I have updated the Knowledge April fools page for 1999 to include the RFC 2550 (and RFC 2549 and 2551) too as an aside. Still need to add in the broken y2k references if it's relevant.
306:
I read this article long before it was nominated and has interesting information. It has links that work, I dont see what the problem is! Its also a fairly lengthy article on a future problem which will happen. its not crystal ball stuff, this will happen if something is not done - granted it wont be
400:
my gut reaction was to delete, until I remembered that I often find Excel 1900 dates really annoying because they don't go back to BC. I presume anyone dealing with software for astronomy, or anyone holding a database which extends scientific predictions for planets beyond 10,000 would find this a
627:
for a nice list, but be warned that some knowledge of the field is necessary to appreciate them fully). Basically, it’s a joke, written by three guys at Compaq who probably spent that year digging through very old code looking for Y2K bugs. In case I’m not being convicing, note that the RFC is
249:
None of the sources provided are reliable. This may be a real thing, but without sources, there's not a single piece of information that can be kept. For what it's worth, two of the first three Google hits for "year 10,000 problem" are this page and its answers.com mirror. 416 hits overall.
582:. The only part dealing with Y10K is ‘the five-digit date convention is needed to avoid the dreaded Y10K problem’ (which is misleading anyway). If I missed something, can you link to the ‘preview’ pages or cite author, date, journal and title (or equivalent information)? In general,
171:). The only cited source is a dead link, and using Archive.org I found only a single passing mention, which I don't think is sufficient to establish notability. And none of the external links seem to be to serious articles, so they can't be considered reliable sources.
259:
This is certainly a real thing. It's the type of thing a computer programmer learns about when he learns "common" mistakes. Also, the fact that the top two hits are WP type articles is true about many searches I make in Google these days -- and that's a good thing! -
801:
That would be easier to believe if you'd add some sources verifying it. Without them, how do we know it is verifiable? This article has been around for years and had previous AfD's - there certainly has been plenty of time to look for sources.
425:
Real problem which has some reasonably notability to it, but it could use some clean-up. Might be redirected to a page discussing date issues in computers in general though, which could combine this page, y2k, y2038 and any others...
104:
410:
I just have to say that anyone designing such a special-purpose database that doesn't know how to create a database that will allow dates going as far into the future as they wish should get another job. :-)
307:
in any of our lifetimes (unless we can live that long). Can I also note although this is the articles third noimation, the gfirst was back in 2004 when the article may not have been as detailed? --
374:- I nominated it back in the year 2004 and was surprised it was kept then. Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Christianity will have been abolished and so we won't even use this system of years anyway.
628:
identified as being in ‘Category: Stinkards Track’ or simply read it with attention to the details. I’m sorry I’m not being more constructive, but I am still convinced that Y10K is a non-issue. —
620:
Sorry, but that’s not an academic article and it’s not from the ACM. The RFC papers document and standardise current practices, protocols and formats related to networks, including the
Internet.
611:
With these links I am only seeking to demonstrate notability and address the crystal-ball issue. Specifically, Y10K was discussed as an issue in 1999 as one of the consequences of the Y2K fix. --
223:
tells us that we only have articles of future events if they're both notable and verifiable. Speculation is innately unverifiable; if it could be verified it would cease to be speculative.
483:. It is not our role as WP editors to speculate on how likely this event is to take place. It has received coverage from multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources, and therefore meets
156:
88:
519:
of the links in the current article are seriously usable except perhaps to prove that some (but not many) people are concerned about undefined problems to occur on Y10K. —
487:. I don't see why the "External links" were discarded as "not serious" and no reason was given. If one search did not return sufficient results, try others like
438:. This is a real concept. I'm not sure it's really a "problem" per se, but... Even if an article is OR, that is not grounds for deletion, merely rewrite. -
129:
124:
458:) and this problem won’t be relevant for a couple of millennia. Anything that has to handle data in that order of magnitude today can simply use
133:
728:
a summary onto a page about problems with computer date-related problems. (This can also include the 2038 and a summary of the Y2K pages.) —
116:
871:
864:
842:
833:
806:
796:
779:
767:
751:
739:
716:
702:
685:
673:
649:
637:
615:
603:
574:
559:
545:
528:
507:
475:
442:
430:
415:
405:
390:
378:
366:
352:
338:
311:
294:
278:
264:
254:
241:
227:
191:
175:
66:
503:. That gives between 1920 and 4306 ghits (the latter figure being the sum of all four, although there are bound to be duplicates). --
763:
into a combined page for computer date problems. Oh, and I really never thought I'd see the words "delete per Redxiv/Doug Bell". LOL.
466:). This topic has no practical relevance except in cases of careless engineering and no recognisable theoretical relevance at all. —
17:
681:
I don't think our civilization will last till 10000 CE. Either cyborgs will replace us, or we will be back in the Middle Ages
823:
759:- Well, it looks a bit better now. I'm not entirely sure it actually merits its own article, though; I like RJH's idea of
580:
579:
That’s a search page, and they’re both the same. Using your query, I found only one article, of which there is a copy at
621:
867:
568:
565:
488:
539:
587:
886:
492:
36:
885:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
803:
776:
323:. The reason you can't find references via google is that it's probably more properly called the "Year 10,000
120:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
462:
counts of milliseconds or microseconds since 1970-01-01T00:00:00+0000 and avoid this problem (along with the
861:
830:
496:
427:
583:
500:
822:
should be a stand-alone either, but that's smergeable per RJH. Alternatively, we could merge this into
591:
375:
188:
682:
112:
96:
80:
72:
594:
is another guideline that sets a lower bound for the abundance of sources on an article’s topic. —
857:
827:
212:
215:
is still in use at that time (not a certainty) and (2) today's computers are still operational (
100:
84:
564:
Fair enough. I'm not up on the specific policy WRT this, but how about a WSJ article in earnest
187:
of OR doesn't mean that the article will stay that way. It's a real problem, right? Keep it. -
853:
819:
712:
646:
633:
612:
599:
571:
555:
542:
524:
504:
471:
463:
455:
387:
348:
308:
220:
164:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
838:
This article is not a joke. This issue represents a real (and common) programming mistake. -
733:
251:
49:
386:
NPOV isn't just for articles: your opinion of
Christianity is irrelevant to this AfD. --
412:
238:
670:
624:
is part of the fine tradition of publishing joke RFCs on April Fools’ Day (see e. g.
608:
Not my night, apparently. The academic article I intended to link to is from the ACM.
320:
275:
237:
as unsourced, speculative article. (The only "reference" link appears to be dead.) —
625:
330:
839:
793:
748:
708:
699:
629:
595:
551:
520:
467:
439:
402:
363:
344:
332:
261:
216:
168:
103:. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see
150:
764:
729:
609:
484:
451:
335:
291:
224:
172:
450:. Assertion of notability without proof and practically unreferenced, failing
550:
That’s a letter to the editor. It’s not usable as a source for the article. —
328:
87:. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see
219:
comes to mind). But the accuracy of the speculation isn't even the issue.
515:
to the ‘keep’ people: what exactly do you suggest to use for references?
590:
is a major guideline that advises on the quality of individual sources.
105:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (2nd nomination)
879:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
343:
None of these pages are useful references (to put it mildly). —
454:. Software has been around for 170 years (if we include the
856:, which I'll probably do anyway if this gets deleted. -
146:
142:
138:
274:- per Doug and per somewhat surprising nomination :)
818:
per nom, Doug Bell, xyzzy_n. I'm not convinced that
89:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
209:seven thousand nine hundred and ninety-three years
327:". Here are just a few I found with one search:
889:). No further edits should be made to this page.
537:Would a New York Times reference be sufficient?
211:. And even then, it could only occur if (1) the
8:
698:. It deserves an article, in my opinion. -
690:Even though it's probably not a legitmate
586:is the policy that requires sources and
163:The article is blatantly speculative (
7:
824:Computing-related April Fool's jokes
775:- Speculation, no verifiable info --
99:was nominated for deletion again on
319:, or maybe (just maybe) merge into
24:
167:) and full of original research (
286:- I'm an inclusionist, but not
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
83:was nominated for deletion on
1:
780:23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
768:23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
752:23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
740:22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
717:19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
703:18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
686:17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
674:09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
650:04:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
638:04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
616:04:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
604:03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
575:03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
560:02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
546:02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
529:23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
508:22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
476:22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
443:20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
431:19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
416:19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
406:15:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
391:02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
379:15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
367:12:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
353:23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
339:12:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
312:12:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
295:11:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
279:11:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
265:19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
255:10:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
242:10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
228:11:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
192:10:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
176:10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
906:
588:Knowledge:Reliable sources
872:22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
843:23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
834:19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
807:23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
797:23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
707:What’s the topic, then? —
645:I have been persuaded. --
290:much of an inclusionist.
67:02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
882:Please do not modify it.
826:or something like that.
784:It may not currently be
669:per Redxiv/Doug Bell --
32:Please do not modify it.
567:, or an academic paper
694:, it is a legitimate
584:Knowledge:Attribution
489:"Year 10,000 problem"
592:Knowledge:Notability
804:Milo H Minderbinder
777:Milo H Minderbinder
113:Year 10,000 problem
97:Year 10,000 problem
81:Year 10,000 problem
73:Year 10,000 problem
850:Merge and redirect
213:Gregorian calendar
870:
854:Year 2000 problem
820:Year 2038 problem
493:"Year 10,000 bug"
464:year 2038 problem
456:analytical engine
897:
884:
860:
461:
460:signed long long
428:FrozenPurpleCube
154:
136:
64:
58:
54:
34:
905:
904:
900:
899:
898:
896:
895:
894:
893:
887:deletion review
880:
715:
636:
602:
558:
527:
474:
459:
351:
203:"problem" that
189:Ta bu shi da yu
127:
111:
76:
60:
56:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
903:
901:
892:
891:
875:
874:
847:
846:
845:
828:Angus McLellan
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
770:
754:
742:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
711:
676:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
632:
598:
554:
531:
523:
510:
497:"Y10K problem"
478:
470:
445:
433:
420:
419:
418:
395:
394:
393:
369:
357:
356:
355:
347:
314:
300:
299:
298:
297:
269:
268:
267:
244:
232:
231:
230:
161:
160:
109:
93:
75:
70:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
902:
890:
888:
883:
877:
876:
873:
869:
866:
863:
859:
858:ElbridgeGerry
855:
851:
848:
844:
841:
837:
836:
835:
832:
829:
825:
821:
817:
814:
808:
805:
800:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
783:
782:
781:
778:
774:
771:
769:
766:
762:
758:
755:
753:
750:
746:
743:
741:
737:
736:
731:
727:
724:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
689:
688:
687:
684:
680:
677:
675:
672:
668:
665:
651:
648:
644:
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
626:
623:
619:
618:
617:
614:
610:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
577:
576:
573:
569:
566:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
547:
544:
540:
538:
536:
532:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
511:
509:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
477:
473:
469:
465:
457:
453:
449:
446:
444:
441:
437:
434:
432:
429:
424:
421:
417:
414:
409:
408:
407:
404:
399:
396:
392:
389:
385:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
370:
368:
365:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
337:
333:
331:
329:
326:
322:
321:Year 2000 bug
318:
315:
313:
310:
305:
302:
301:
296:
293:
289:
285:
282:
281:
280:
277:
273:
270:
266:
263:
258:
257:
256:
253:
248:
245:
243:
240:
236:
233:
229:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
194:
193:
190:
186:
183:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
170:
166:
158:
152:
148:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
108:
106:
102:
98:
94:
92:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
59:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
881:
878:
849:
815:
789:
785:
772:
760:
756:
744:
734:
725:
695:
691:
678:
666:
647:Richard Daly
642:
613:Richard Daly
572:Richard Daly
543:Richard Daly
534:
533:
516:
512:
505:Black Falcon
480:
447:
435:
422:
397:
388:Richard Daly
383:
371:
359:
324:
316:
309:PrincessBrat
303:
287:
283:
271:
246:
234:
208:
204:
200:
196:
184:
181:
162:
95:
79:
61:
55:
51:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
252:Djrobgordon
201:speculative
185:possibility
790:verifiable
788:but it IS
501:"Y10K bug"
376:Astrotrain
221:WP:CRYSTAL
165:WP:CRYSTAL
101:2006-09-15
85:2004-11-09
683:Al-Bargit
413:Doug Bell
364:JuntungWu
239:Doug Bell
207:occur in
199:: It's a
786:verified
671:Ratarsed
622:RFC 2550
513:Question
276:Moreschi
157:View log
840:grubber
794:grubber
761:merging
757:Comment
749:Ttiotsw
700:grubber
692:problem
440:grubber
384:Comment
284:Comment
262:grubber
197:Comment
130:protect
125:history
831:(Talk)
816:Delete
773:Delete
765:Redxiv
679:Delete
667:Delete
643:Delete
499:, and
448:Delete
372:Delete
336:Plutor
292:Redxiv
272:Delete
247:Delete
235:Delete
225:Redxiv
173:Redxiv
134:delete
868:block
726:Merge
709:xyzzy
696:topic
630:xyzzy
596:xyzzy
570:? --
552:xyzzy
521:xyzzy
468:xyzzy
345:xyzzy
334:. --
217:WP:CB
205:might
169:WP:OR
151:views
143:watch
139:links
16:<
792:. -
745:Keep
735:talk
535:Keep
517:None
485:WP:N
481:Keep
452:WP:A
436:Keep
423:Keep
403:Mike
398:Keep
362:. --
360:Keep
317:Keep
304:Keep
288:that
182:Keep
147:logs
121:talk
117:edit
52:Buck
852:to
730:RJH
325:bug
155:– (
62:ofg
57:ets
802:--
738:)
541:--
495:,
491:,
250:--
149:|
145:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
48:.
865:c
862:t
732:(
713:n
634:n
600:n
556:n
525:n
472:n
411:—
349:n
159:)
153:)
115:(
107:.
91:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.