346:(or merge to Y2K maybe) It's survived three previous nominations, but in response to some of the arguments made in favor of it: (a) if it was a satire on Y2K, it's pretty stale by now (b) if it's something you're worried about, you've still got 7,982 years left, and your descendants will laugh about their superstitious ancestors (c) if there's a computer 7,982 years from now that still uses the "old" four digit technology, what a triumph of engineering that will be (d) if it's here because someone is going to look up "year 10,000 problem", merge this to Y2K (e) if you think this is a problem for computer programs that have to calculate astronomical data 10,000 years in the future, rest assured that even now, in the year "02008" or "002008", someone smarter than you will be able to solve that particular problem.
186:. These problems are every bit as notable as the year 2000 problem, with the exception that they're not happening yet. But since some people are taking the year 10,000 problem seriously and some not, it's already a topic of discussion, just like the year 2000 problem, which of course is notable. Keep that. The others are just amusing things posted on some college site, and are not serious topics of discussion.... yet. Delete those for now, perhaps bringing back the others when the problem's imminent, if Wiki (heck, the world!) is still around.
735:. I'm fairly sure this problem was mentioned, though not by that name, in Donald Knuth's "The Art of Scientific Computing". I listed a few other books that mention it briefly, from a Google Books search, on the article talk page. 2480 Google web hits can't all be wrong. Whether it's something we need to worry about is beside the point: those of us who tend to think like mathematicians talk/write about these things regardless, making them notable. --
569:
happens in the future too so what counts is references. The RFC 2550 (albeit humorous) plus the g77 compiler explicitly references the "Year 10000" when it says...."Programs making use of this intrinsic might not be Year 10000 (Y10K) compliant." You could argue *that* is humorous too unless you were
407:
of 1970 was frugal for file timestamps, but the date-related library routines would have been tremendously useful for general purpose date computations (mortgages, birth dates, etc.) had the epoch been set earlier. The Y10K limit is less restrictive than recent problems, but plenty of applications
441:
is easily distinguished from all the other "Year problem"s in play in that it's a past event, and the article thus has a wealth of material dealing with the run-up, event, and post mortem. 2038 and other future events thus would be a sensible candidate for their own separate article, although it
258:: these are all legitimate computational problems, not just for the future, but for those who have to work with such dates, such as astronomers calculating the dates of events, interest payments on national debt, etc. A suitable article might be titled
92:
87:
82:
77:
509:. From my experience, people only mention this "problem" (if this is still a problem in 8,000 years then I will be shocked at the retarted computer skills of humans) is when joking about Y2K.
403:: thinking like that has caused plenty of trouble to date. Even in 1998, I knew plenty of programmers who were uncertain whether Y2K was something they should anticipate. Choosing the Unix
565:
but delete the rest (year 655535 etc etc) as those have no clear references. The nomination uses a bizarre reason of "happens in the distant future"; that is irrelevant (the
209:
147:
72:
570:
trying to convince the public that the high-grade radioactive waste you want to dump in a Salt Mine is stable for -32,000 years. Actually that would be funny too.
488:, as many programs (e.g. computer simulations of star paths) carry such large dates today - this is not such a long-way-off problem for many people already.
680:. Even if it never become a real problem, it's certainly a real topic of discussion in certain communities (see, e.g., the references in the article). —
163:
421:
120:
115:
124:
457:
Note also that yes, the year Y10K is not for another 8,000 years, but five-digit dates can be and are used today in certain circumstances,
107:
802:
779:
752:
724:
701:
684:
668:
654:
633:
616:
599:
579:
551:
524:
497:
478:
428:
393:
376:
355:
338:
313:
266:
250:
225:
195:
178:
55:
535:
469:
a try, with the obvious corollary that if any given year problem then appears to deserve it, it can be re-spun into its own article.--
368:
17:
246:
221:
364:
159:
442:
would need to be edited 30 years+1 month from now to reflect that 2038 is now no longer a future event (that's what
566:
820:
612:
384:
as it's not for another 8,000 years, nonsense really to even think that the same type of system will be in use. -
52:
36:
212:
which I created shortly before this AfD. They are all short stubs whilst the Y10k is an established article. --
819:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
111:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
798:
775:
714:
692:, ^^^ and the deletion-discussion in itself actually show that the article is valid for an encyclopedia...
389:
259:
697:
404:
372:
310:
446:
385:
748:
740:
720:
693:
608:
547:
474:
334:
49:
641:
Just because you have trouble thinking 8k years ahead doesn't mean the rest of us do. (see also the
790:
763:
677:
664:
588:
562:
351:
283:
234:
205:
191:
155:
103:
61:
794:
771:
770:
is already more than halfway to Y10K. I'd say that's evidence enough that this is a real issue.
710:
517:
413:
242:
217:
607:. Seems to be meet all the Knowledge criteria for keeping; I don't see the argument for delete.
575:
506:
438:
306:
290:
174:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
629:
493:
417:
767:
744:
736:
650:
543:
470:
330:
326:
660:
596:
539:
347:
187:
709:. This page is relevant, as it describes, in detail, this possible bug in computing.
512:
238:
213:
571:
425:
263:
170:
141:
625:
591:, people around the internet and elsewhere are referring to it, in jest or not.
489:
646:
592:
329:
stuff. Renominate if you really think it's necessary, for just this page.--
276:
Y10K = keep, already discussed, no reason to believe a change of consensus.
681:
642:
624:
Please keep this article. It's more relevant than many other theories.
461:. Since the speedy keep is an apparent lead balloon, my vote would be
813:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
409:
164:
year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem
743:) 04:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (changing to "keep or merge. --
169:
Not significant, as these are occurring in the distant future.
645:
project for other people thinking seriously about this issue)
298:
170,... = speedy delete, as it was created by the nominator.
793:
need to survive AfD campaigns before the nominations stop?
93:
Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (5th nomination)
88:
Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (4th nomination)
83:
Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (3rd nomination)
78:
Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (2nd nomination)
465:
as there is relevant content. At most, we could give a
325:
as the current nomination is cluttered with extraneous
137:
133:
129:
282:
65536 = delete, no point. Alternatively, redirect to
210:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Year 32,768 problem
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
823:). No further edits should be made to this page.
208:and the two other later ones be discussed at
8:
540:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
73:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem
422:Template:Time measurement and standards
70:
408:are sensitive to that kind of limit:
365:computer year storage rollover problem
7:
68:
659:Oh, it's a handicap, to be sure.
536:argument from personal incredulity
420:. See the articles referenced by
24:
184:Keep the first, delete the others
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
289:292,... = keep as redirect to
1:
538:, which is one of many, many
367:, perhaps also included Y2K.
803:16:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
780:16:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
753:18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
725:03:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
702:13:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
685:05:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
669:13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
655:00:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
634:23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
617:21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
600:20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
580:18:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
552:22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
525:09:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
498:00:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
479:00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
429:00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
394:22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
377:22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
356:21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
339:21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
314:20:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
267:20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
251:20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
226:20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
196:20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
179:20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
160:year 292,277,026,596 problem
56:05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
840:
567:Heat death of the universe
424:for many such examples. —
768:Jewish religious calendar
534:Please watch out for the
301:moved to other nomination
816:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
418:age of celestial bodies
273:Needs to be separated:
789:- How many times does
67:AfDs for this article:
260:Year rollover problem
791:Year 10,000 problem
764:Year 10,000 problem
678:Year 10,000 problem
589:Year 10,000 problem
563:Year 10,000 problem
459:as the article says
284:year 10,000 problem
235:year 10,000 problem
206:year 65,536 problem
156:year 65,536 problem
104:Year 10,000 problem
62:Year 10,000 problem
711:User:Humanitix_bro
505:or maybe Merge to
452:is for, right? :-)
414:radiocarbon dating
727:
507:Year 2000 problem
463:strong not-delete
439:Year 2000 problem
291:year 2038 problem
204:. I suggest that
831:
818:
718:
522:
520:
515:
451:
445:
145:
127:
46:yet another keep
34:
839:
838:
834:
833:
832:
830:
829:
828:
827:
821:deletion review
814:
609:Geoffrey.landis
518:
513:
511:
449:
443:
118:
102:
99:
97:
65:
50:Yamamoto Ichiro
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
837:
835:
826:
825:
808:
806:
805:
783:
782:
757:
756:
729:
728:
704:
687:
671:
657:
636:
619:
602:
582:
555:
554:
528:
527:
500:
482:
481:
454:
453:
432:
431:
397:
396:
379:
358:
341:
319:
318:
317:
316:
303:
294:
287:
279:
270:
269:
253:
228:
152:
151:
98:
96:
95:
90:
85:
80:
75:
69:
66:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
836:
824:
822:
817:
811:
810:
809:
804:
800:
796:
795:RossPatterson
792:
788:
785:
784:
781:
777:
773:
772:RossPatterson
769:
765:
762:
759:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
733:Keep or merge
731:
730:
726:
723:was added at
722:
716:
712:
708:
705:
703:
699:
695:
691:
688:
686:
683:
679:
675:
672:
670:
666:
662:
658:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
637:
635:
631:
627:
623:
620:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
601:
598:
594:
590:
586:
583:
581:
577:
573:
568:
564:
560:
557:
556:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
529:
526:
523:
521:
516:
508:
504:
501:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
483:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
455:
448:
440:
437:
434:
433:
430:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
406:
402:
399:
398:
395:
391:
387:
383:
380:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:
320:
315:
312:
308:
304:
302:
299:
296:
295:
292:
288:
285:
281:
278:
275:
274:
272:
271:
268:
265:
261:
257:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
180:
176:
172:
167:
166:
165:
161:
157:
149:
143:
139:
135:
131:
126:
122:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
100:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
815:
812:
807:
786:
760:
732:
706:
689:
673:
638:
621:
604:
584:
558:
531:
510:
502:
485:
466:
462:
458:
447:update after
435:
400:
381:
369:132.205.44.5
360:
343:
322:
307:Arthur Rubin
300:
297:
280:
277:
255:
230:
201:
183:
182:
168:
154:
153:
45:
43:
31:
28:
719:—Preceding
639:Strong Keep
386:RiverHockey
323:Speedy keep
745:Coppertwig
737:Coppertwig
694:Wille Raab
544:NapoliRoma
471:NapoliRoma
344:Delete all
331:NapoliRoma
661:Mandsford
348:Mandsford
231:Weak keep
188:Redbull47
643:Long now
436:Comments
327:WP:POINT
247:contribs
239:RHaworth
222:contribs
214:RHaworth
148:View log
787:Comment
721:comment
572:Ttiotsw
532:Comment
426:EncMstr
401:Comment
264:EncMstr
202:Comment
171:Voortle
121:protect
116:history
766:- The
626:XChaos
503:Delete
490:LHMike
416:, and
382:Delete
311:(talk)
125:delete
647:Osric
519:Spyke
467:merge
405:epoch
361:Merge
256:Merge
237:. --
142:views
134:watch
130:links
16:<
799:talk
776:talk
761:Keep
749:talk
741:talk
715:talk
707:Keep
698:talk
690:Keep
676:the
674:Keep
665:talk
651:talk
630:talk
622:Keep
613:talk
605:Keep
597:talk
593:Thue
587:the
585:Keep
576:talk
561:the
559:Keep
548:talk
494:talk
486:Keep
475:talk
410:MTTF
390:talk
373:talk
352:talk
335:talk
262:. —
243:Talk
233:for
218:Talk
192:talk
175:talk
162:and
138:logs
112:talk
108:edit
717:)
682:mlc
542:.--
363:to
309:|
146:– (
801:)
778:)
751:)
700:)
667:)
653:)
632:)
615:)
595:|
578:)
550:)
514:TJ
496:)
477:)
450:}}
444:{{
412:,
392:)
375:)
354:)
337:)
305:—
249:)
245:|
224:)
220:|
194:)
177:)
158:,
140:|
136:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
53:会話
48:.
797:(
774:(
755:)
747:(
739:(
713:(
696:(
663:(
649:(
628:(
611:(
574:(
546:(
492:(
473:(
388:(
371:(
350:(
333:(
293:.
286:.
241:(
216:(
190:(
173:(
150:)
144:)
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.