Jump to content

Talk:3rd millennium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Jesus Christ undoubtedly existed, and His birthdate was about 4–8 B.C.. Rewording this paragraph. I have also removed the part about the third millennium BC, as it is irrelevant. —Wereon 20:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following:

Events:

Significant persons:

  • George Walker Bush-President of United States
  • Tony Blair-Prime Minister of United Kingdom
  • Saddam Hussein-former dictator of Iraq

The 3rd millennia will indeed contain many events, but those listed in a future encyclopedia looking back will certainly be on the larger scale. This is in effect future history by listing this as important to this millennium. This info should be listed per relevant decade or year. — Sverdrup 14:34, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Assuming that such a person existed" is quite unencyclopedic. But anyway, people are getting so queer lately. Pfortuny 14:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed a section of polemic about the arbitrary nature of systems of numbering years. If someone really cares, the right place for that kind of polemic would be in an article of its own, or perhaps a paragraph in Common Era or Gregorian calendar. Gdr 16:48, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

Picture

Can we have a picture like with the other millenias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.2.70 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Years in the future

Most of the 3rd millennium lies in the future. So I think this article belongs to that above-named category.

Brianjd 04:24, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

For the calendar senses I added go to the link below to get proof. Heegoop, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

December 31st 1999

It was widely publisised that the "Second" millennium ended on December 31st 1999. And we all know that the "Last" millennium ended 6 days after "Jesus Christ" was born... 1 B.C. So then on A.D. 0 on the first day of the year the "First" millennium came into contact with reality. QED


(Further proof our educational system is lacking.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.229.212 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


The Decade and Milleniums match up, so 2000 was the first year of the millennium (BBC: note the date the article was written: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/586197.stm). The new millenium was celebrated across the world on midnight of December 31st 1999/January 1st 2000. In reality there probably should have been a year 0 (0 is as much a number as any other number), meaning the current year should be 2009. In the same way an hour does not start one second after a minute, a millennium does not start one year after a decade.

At midnight 31st December 1999, every degree of time changed, so there was new second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade. Why should millennium be any different. seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years and decades do not have a 0 value, eg seconds/mins/hrs is 1-59, days is 1-365, months is 1-21 and years start at 1, so everything that started at 1 changed to a new degree of time, therefore is makes sense that both decades and milleniums (which also both start at 1 not 0) would also start anew.

It is only logical to have the discrepancy 2000-ish years ago(that fact there is no year 0) , rather than in the present which affects the people who are alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.93.252 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I still say 2000 was the start year of the 3rd millennium. I mean just because there was no year 0 according to the Gregorian Calendar, doesn't make 2000 a part of the 20th century. I mean the year is called 2000. It has a 2 in front of it just like the rest of the years of the 21st century and 3rd millennium, it doesn't say 1-something. Also, most media outlets use 2000 as the start of the 3rd millennium, all of the big new millennium celebrations took place on the night of December 31, 1999 going into the early morning hours of January 1, 2000. There was none on the night of December 31, 2000 going into 2001. We should really change the article to state that 2000 was the start year of the 3rd millennium. -Bjoh249 (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no year 0. The decades do not follow the same rule as centuries or years. The 1990s for example started on January 1st 1990 and ended 31st of December 1999. That's not a discrepancy, we clearly talk about decades in reference to their common third digit. The year 2000 has nothing to do with the year zero. If you can count to 100 you'll easily understand that you have to have the 100th year, otherwise the term "cent-tury" is nullified in it's meaning. 1999 was the 99th year of the 20th century. If you can't understand that I feel deeply sorry for you, but the fact remains, the 21st century began on the 1st of January 2001 and it has absolutely nothing to do with year 0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexxxicide (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

BCE/CE vs. astronomical systems: confusion about Year 0

This article has for some time implied that the Common Era system contains a Year 0, making it sensible to view the 3rd Millennium as starting on 1 January 2000, not 1 January 2001, if you use the Common Era system. An external link to an article by Peter Meyer has been supplied to justify this point.

It may be that Mr. Meyer is the only one who views the Common Era system this way. The other authorities I can find, including Wikipedia's own article on the topic, all maintain that 1 CE was immediately preceded by 1 BCE, and that (N) BC = (N) BCE, not (N-1) BCE. The original hyperlink to the Common Era article, therefore, refuted the very assertion it was included to support.

The astronomical year numbering system does include a Year 0, and for very good reason, because it's a system of time measurement, not a system of year counting. So the 3rd Millennium of the era beginning with astronomical Year 0 does begin on 1 January 2000. I have edited the article to reflect this and eliminate a misconception about the Common Era system.

The year 0 is either considered not a part of any millenium, or a part of the first millenium BCE (since year 0 CE is the same as year 1 BC). I have updated the article accordingly.

Those who want to debate this issue are directed to the talk pages for Common Era and Year 0, where various people have tried to find support for the concept of the year 0 CE, with little success except Peter Meyer's article. --Sharpner 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire history of IslamoJudaeoChristianity is relegated to the term Millennialists?!

I clicked on "3rd Millennium" to see what it would say about 65% of the world's population seeing it as a time of transition before the end of the world, and there was one line, saying "some millennialists and anarchists believe..." I'm sorry, but anyone who believes the Bible or the Torah or the Koran, even those who take them as 90% metaphor, generally believe that the history of man's consciousness on earth started "around" 4000 BC and will last 7000 years, with the Messiah, whoever he is, returning at the beginning of the 7th millennium, i.e. somewhere "around" 2000 BC. And IslamoJudaeoChristianity covers 70% of the population of the earth! That surely deserves more than a passing sarcastic reference. --Mrcolj 13:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What a nut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.2.32 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're overstating the prevalence of this belief within these religions -- or at least within Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who don't necessarily believe that the 3rd millennium is when this transition will occur. Jesus himself was pretty explicit that the time cannot and should not be identified or predicted: See Matthew 24:36. --Sharpner 05:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar vs. "Common Era Calendar"

Note to the several editors who have tried to insert this inaccuracy in the article from time to time: the endpoints of the millennia do not change depending on whether you use the Gregorian Calendar or the "Common Era Calendar." Actually there is no such thing as a "Common Era Calendar." The Common Era is not a calendar but a calendar era, and the Gregorian Calendar actually uses it. Also -- see discussion above -- there is no Year 0 in the Common Era, so you don't get to claim that the "3rd Millennium" spans 2000-2999 provided you use this so-called "Common Era Calendar."

The years 2000 through 2999 do constitute a millennium, which you can call the "2000s" if you want. (You can even call it the "current millennium," as long as you recognize that the current millennium is any period of 1000 consecutive years that includes the present moment, including, for example, the one that started with April 1, 1657 and will end with March 31, 2657.) Just don't call it the "3rd Millennium" without further elaboration, because people will assume it's the 3rd millennium of some period they're interested in or familiar with. 2000-2999 is the 3rd millennium of the period that began on January 1, 1 BCE whether you reckon with the Gregorian Calendar, the Common Era, or (as everyone does these days) both. The problem is that most people will assume you mean the period that began on January 1, 1 CE. --Sharpner 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Significant people

Should there be a "Current Significant People" section on this page, like just the politicians, activists and such, or would it be too soon? I know a few celebrities might be okay, but I understand people might pile them on. It otherwise seems like a good idea to me, but I would respect your decision. --ChrisRJ (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't generally like the idea of listing celebrities, but I think Time's Person of the Year might be a good place to start
  • 2001 Rudolph Giuliani b. 1944
  • 2002 The Whistleblowers Represented by Cynthia Cooper, WorldCom; Coleen Rowley, FBI; and Sherron Watkins, Enron
  • 2003 The American Soldier Abstract choice; 2nd time chosen
  • 2004 George W. Bush b. 1946 2nd time chosen, 11th president chosen
  • 2005 The Good Samaritans Represented by Bono, Bill Gates, and Melinda Gates
  • 2006 You [8] Abstract choice; A salute to the individual content creator on the World Wide Web
  • 2007 Vladimir Putin[9] b. 1952
  • 2008 Barack Obama[10] b. 1961 12th president chosen;first African American U.S president
--ErinHowarth (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are American Presidents automatically significant? The current list is a little strange. Maybe we should avoid editing this page too much until we're half-way through the millennium? --Aindriahhn (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article is contradicted by an article it has a link to. It lists the decades in the 3rd millennium as:

21st century 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s 2050s 2060s 2070s 2080s 2090s

But, in the article for 2000s, it says that it is the decade that spans from 1-Jan-2000 to 31-Dec-2009.

That is a contradiction with this article that says that the 3rd millennium starts on 1-Jan-2001, not 2000.

So, which is it? 2001 or 2000? If it's 2001, then the article for 2000s should be changed to note the decade is from 2001 to 2010. Ciderbarrel (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The 2000s is mostly in the 3rd millennium and the 21st century. No contradiction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This is using the word 'nonsense' to mean 'correct'? The decade and the millenium started on 1 January 2001. If you struggle with that, try learning to count. Sam1930 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It's still nonsense, and not correct, as you should know by now. The 2000s started on 1 January 2000. The 201st decade of the Common Era would start on 1 January 2001, if anyone used that terminology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for wanting articles to have correct information. I tried to edit the box here with the years in it, but it's just some code, "l3d|2" 2000 shouldn't be in the box but 3000 should.Ciderbarrel (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a macro/template expert. {{L3d}} transcludes {{L2d}} which transcludes {{Ld}}, none of which are used anywhere else. There's probably a way to handle it using arithmetic operations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I see two solutions:

Change Template:ld from

[[{{{1}}}0]] [[{{{1}}}1]] [[{{{1}}}2]] [[{{{1}}}3]] [[{{{1}}}4]] [[{{{1}}}5]] [[{{{1}}}6]] [[{{{1}}}7]] [[{{{1}}}8]] [[{{{1}}}9]]

to

[[{{{1}}}1]] [[{{{1}}}2]] [[{{{1}}}3]] [[{{{1}}}4]] [[{{{1}}}5]] [[{{{1}}}6]] [[{{{1}}}7]] [[{{{1}}}8]] [[{{{1}}}9]] [[{{{2}}}0]]

and the corresponding changes to Template:l2d and Template:l3d, or replace the last change in Template:ld by an arithmetic calculation, with no change to l2d and l3d. I don't know if it's worth the trouble. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed list of years, although it may be lousy code. I chose the first option, with checking whether the second parameter is present. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Years for study

Now that "the historian" has a wee bit of the 2010s decade to study, I think I'm going to add that to this page. Feel free to change if you have any objections. SenorCrunchy (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my edit.

I was talking about the beginning of the apocalypse, not the end. Therefore, I am indeed right. I will make my edit again after 24 hours. 88.109.29.126 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before making any edits to Wikipedia. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The source you cited does not state that the third millenium ended yesterday. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The expectations are not 'popular' in the sense of widely expected - the references cannot show that. If it was about specific predictions then there might be a place for it. But it's not even that. As it is, the section comprises science-fiction-type that some people think might become reality during the third millennium. Not really focused enough for Wikipedia. Therefore I've removed the 'Popular expectations' section. asnac (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

First year of 3rd millennium

It strikes me that citing a personal page of a mathematician/computer scientist is not a sufficient citation to make a flat statement that the first year of the 3rd millennium was 2001. Not only is the only source not particularly authoritative, the source argues for considering 2001 the first year, but does not claim this is a settled matter.

In my mind, the question is whether you only want to look at the AD year numbering scheme, or want to consider the underlying alleged event, the Incarnation of Jesus. The surviving copies of the works of the inventor of the AD system, Dionysius Exiguus, indicate the system commemorates the Incarnation, and equates (at the precision of 1 year) AD 532 with Diocletian 248, but does not clearly state what date Dionysius was considering to be the date of the Incarnation. As explained in the "Anno Domini" article, arguments have been presented in The Oxford Companion to the Year for Dionysius having placed the Incarnation in 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1. So there is insufficient evidence to decide when the third millennium since the Incarnation (as estimated by Dionysius) began.

In the absence of sufficient evidence to decide the matter on the facts, one must rely on consensus or authority. But consensus is unclear, and no authority has stepped forward to declare when the third millennium began as a matter of fiat. Indeed, it isn't clear that any authority exists which has the power to do that. So I think the matter is legitimately open to debate. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. In the event you are not trolling, I think that what we need to say that we (Wikipedia) consider the 3rd millennium to start at 2001, and point all specific disputes to a single location (probably Millennium#Debate over millennium celebrations). Whether or not it's open to debate, it is clearly inappropriate to debate it in each of the century and millennium articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The point about a central location for debates is a good one. If any resolution were reached, it would make sense to have a pointer in the articles and talk pages of related articles. But "we need to say that we (Wikipedia) consider the 3rd millennium to start at 2001" is problematic. There are really three issues:
  1. What, if any, consensus exists around the world, about when the 3rd millennium began? For purposes of making statements in articles about when the 3rd millennium began, Wikipedia can't just declare what the consensus is, it needs to describe the situation based on reliable sources.
  2. How will Wikipedia categorize and list events? We could adopt any reasonable convention for this.
  3. What style will Wikipedia use when discuss millennium-related events in articles? This could generally be avoided. Only articles actually discussing millennium-related nomenclature and events really need to say that something was or wasn't in the 3rd millennium. The concept would be that real writers rewrite to avoid style problems, such as recasting sentences so they won't begin with a numeral. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Others who avoided choosing a specific date are President Bill Clinton (the sitting US President at the time) and the Millennium Council he appointed. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/WCPD-2000-01-10/WCPD-2000-01-10-Pg7/content-detail.html Jc3s5h (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable source which says that the millennium began in 2000? We can find some who say it is ambiguous, but are there any which unequivocally say that it began in 2000? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Gould claims (p. 120) that Kaiser Wilhelm II, Sigmund Freud, and Lord Kelvin were in the camp that millennia began in years ending in 00. Gould does not use citations, but he indicated (p. 102) much of his material came from Hillel Schwartz's Century's end: a cultural history of the fin de siècle--from the 990s through the 1990s. Schwartz's book isn't available from a library near me, but the Google Books page for the book will produce this if you put "Kelvin" in the search box (p. 192):

...and the public declaration in favor of 1900 by the physicist Sir William Thompson, Lord Kelvin.

Kelvin wouldn't have had access to the sources we have today, but I'm sure he counted in much the same way we do today, so I'd be inclined to accept him as a reliable source. Of course it would be better to be able to cite the work in which he made this claim directly. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#When do centuries and millennia begin? for a centralized discussion, to avoid repeating myself and requiring Jc3s5h to repeat himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed mention of Holocene Era

I removed mention of the Holocene Era on the basis of it not being notable enough to merit inclusion. One justification for this view is page B4 of the Astronomical Almanac for the year 2011 which lists the date in 2011 when each of ten eras begin a stated year, but Holocene Era is not mentioned. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What year the millennium began

I reverted the edit that explained the disagreement on what year the millennium began. Almost every millennium and century is has that exact same disagreement of on what year it began, but the overwhelming majority of other articles don't include that explanation (e.g. 25th century, 21st century, 1st millennium). I wouldn't necessarily object to giving a brief expiation of this disagreement on these articles, but per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS we shouldn't single out this article unless there's some compelling reason to treat if differently from the others. If there's not some reason to treat this differently, I would suggest starting an WP:RFC on these types of articles, and informing WikiProjects Time and Years. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has begun but you didn't bother to find it. Reverting. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea there was already a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I somehow missed the "First year of 3rd millennium" section above. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion began above, but has been centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#When do centuries and millennia begin? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

2008 Global Recession?

I am not part of this WikiProject (maybe I will soon) but I just wanted to help. Just asking should we add in the Timeline of Events section the 2008 Global Recession? Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's notable enough for an article about the entire millennium. Maybe ask on 2000s (decade), the section of economics over there leaves something to be desired regarding the recession. Elassint Hi 00:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


Significant people of the 21st century

I would suggest it's much too early to include Malcolm Turnbull in the list of significant people of this century. In fact, I'm not sure why Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard even qualify, either. They haven't had any notable international impact, and only a limited domestic impact. In ten or twenty years' time, will anyone see the Rudd-Gillard years as "notable"? Really, within Oceania, I would suggest that Voreqe Bainimarama is a more significant figure than either Rudd or Gillard, both on a domestic and international level… (ʻAkilisi Pohiva is also arguably more notable than Rudd or Gillard, though I wouldn't include him either.)
I'd say it's also too early to include Narendra Modi, though he certainly has the potential to be an important figure. As for David Cameron, I assume he's included because of the possible continental consequences of his current premiership? Otherwise, Tony Blair strikes me as a more significant figure for inclusion than Cameron. Aridd (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Separate civilisations

It is false (to put it mildly) to claim that say Austria (to pick a country at random) is a "separate civilisation" from the rest of Europe — now or in the rest of the millennium!----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Got some vandalism coming in.

This page was recently brought up in a reddit post, and it looks like some people have decided it would be fun to start changing the page. It's fairly minor, but do watch out. Lukeroge (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1st millennium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Events

Why is the #Events section almost completely occupied by crimes? Surely we can do find some other events to add. Dustin (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Images

Even if that image is appropriately licensed, Mark doesn't deserve a featured position. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Overview of year articles

Links to all individual year articles
{{L2d|20|{{#if: 3|21|}}}}

{{L2d|21|{{#if: 3|22|}}}}

{{L2d|22|{{#if: 3|23|}}}}

{{L2d|23|{{#if: 3|24|}}}}

{{L2d|24|{{#if: 3|25|}}}}

{{L2d|25|{{#if: 3|26|}}}}

{{L2d|26|{{#if: 3|27|}}}}

{{L2d|27|{{#if: 3|28|}}}}

{{L2d|28|{{#if: 3|29|}}}}

{{L2d|29|{{#if: 3|30|}}}}

Lead to "Predicted Events"

@Arthur Rubin. I changed this because the statement that the 21st century includes the "2000s decade" clearly contradicts the statement in the lead of the article that this millennium started with the year 2001. I cannot see any good reason for all those links here when they are shown immediately above this section. Blurryman (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Blurryman: Point taken; I've restored your edit. But, perhaps something like:
Only the first (20) years of the millennium, that is the years through 2020, are subjects of historians.
With the 20s calculated? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: By using the phrase "before the present day", I was intending to make the text future-proof, with no need to update. But I would have no objection to your suggestion. - Blurryman (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Date format

Why does this article use the date format which is only used in the US? For an article which is relevant to the whole world, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the most widely used format? Blurryman (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Since this article has no particular strong national WP:TIES to any one nation, the type of date format (and variety of English) was totally up to the discretion of the creating editors. This article is very old, 19 years old to be exact. A very early revision of the article already depicts the mdy date format. I am comfortable with retaining that date format, due to no national ties and no compelling rationale to change it. Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

2020s page merges

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#2020s_page_merges. -- Beland (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

92.238.40.26 (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So I can include the fact that during the 24th century, Voyager 1 may enter the Oort cloud

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Prediction References

Are these time-series articles subject to a more lax standard for referencing and verifiability? The list of predictions seems indiscriminate and is mostly un-referenced. Is there a reason the un-referenced material shouldn't be removed? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the un-referenced material from this article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Serendipitous was concerned about the maintenance burden of this article and the need to constantly remove fictional entries. After the recent merge fest, it does indeed seem to continue to suffer from that problem, as well as IP addresses and new accounts making content and style changes that get reverted, sometimes multiple times without eliciting any discussion from the drive-by accounts. I'm going to try semi-protecting this article to see if that helps. If you have an objection or think it's not working out for the best, feel free to ping me. -- Beland (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

47.145.180.37 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

More literary works, comics and printed cartoons, television series, films, video games, board, card, tabletop role playing games, toys, attractions and other media will be released in that century

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the "January 1 xxxx - Assuming no extensions to copyright guidelines, blah blah blah will enter the public domain." is kind of just clogging up space. Notices that mention works like Disney's animation Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs should remain there, but if you can't find a work that was made in a specific year, then does there really need to be a line saying that? And, I have rights to edit the document but I don't want to just barge in and delete all the lines except for the notices with works that can be thought of, so just making sure I have some agreement. You may say "Maybe somebody knows something that was produced in that year even when we can't think of one off the top of our head, it's important to them!" You may be correct, but if they really cared about that, they could probably just search it up, couldn't they? I know it's a weak argument and all, but can we not have 100 lines of pretty worthless information of the same copy pasted statement? i guess i get if people don't want to do that, but is there a way to reduce the sheer amount of overflowing information off of this page? JameezWiki (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Public domain rule

Up until 2044, works will enter the public domain at the start of the year of their 96th birthday. This article says that this sequence will stop in 2044. Why?? What will happen to 1948 works?? Will some 1948 works remain copyrighted?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: For the United States, I don't think that's entirely correct, but it also depends on the type of work. The "why" is "because that's the time limit set by Congress", which is occasionally changed by passing new laws (sometimes retroactive) usually after a fair amount of lobbying by copyright holders and objections from public domain advocates. There's a ton of details at Public domain in the United States. -- Beland (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy/Space X

Should the 'falcon heavy' 'falcon 9' or 'reusable rockets' be added to the list of notable technology or the 'space exploration'. While it is entirely possible that the space exploration of the 3rd millennium could include everything up to 'interstellar flight', should not these notable rockets be included since they are the first widely used reusable rockets that have been developed by a private company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.175.246 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Reusable launch systems were invented in the 2nd millennium. SpaceX is already mentioned at 21st century#Space exploration, though perhaps commercialization achievements could be more explicitly mentioned there. -- Beland (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Remove "anniversaries"

There are various "anniversaries" of historical events, which should not be there -- these would spur editors from countries all around the world to add in "anniversaries" that are not globally notable. NoNews! 07:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the article, I agree. Feel free to remove these trivial "anniversaries". (WP:BOLD). Blurryman (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Done, except for those mentioned in reference to time capsule openings. -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Settlement on the Mars

United Arab Emirates have official plan(similar to NASA), about making a settlement on Mars. It is covered by state money, and probably notable(as notable are NASA missions, and usually are on Wikipedia). Planned date is up to 2117.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.32.136 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting development! Given the large uncertainty in timing and whether or not this would actually happen, I decided not to list that here (any far-future NASA plans aren't listed either) but I did add a mention to Colonization of Mars. -- Beland (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nt.interia.pl/raporty/raport-kosmos/informacje/news-emiracka-sonda-kosmiczna-weszla-na-orbite-marsa,nId,5041096

Time capsule citations

I have started taking the customer data from over 25 years in business, mostly from the plaques we have done for customers that indicate their planned openings for time capsules. How do I properly cite our own original sources so that all the time and effort expended on listing this information is not deleted? In many cases I can indicate the size of time capsule as well as the opening of them. This section reminds me of a tickler file in the sense that the International Time Capsule Society already does in-house. But much of the information I have is valid although I do not know how you would like it to be verified.Capsulegal (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Capsulegal: Source material must be published so that it can be verified by other editors. The how-to guide for citations is Wikipedia:Citing sources. There are restrictions on self-published sources; for those see WP:RSSELF. If you are thinking about adding information supported by sources published by you or an organization you are affiliated with, you will probably need to post requests to do so on talk pages instead, and you should disclose your connection to the source; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

26th century redirects are listed at Redirects for discussion

I have filed a few discussions at RfD to address the redirects that target the currently empty section on the 26th century. The discussions are at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

But sources said, the polar bears are becoming extinct by 2100, due to loss of habitat. According to these multiple sources: [1] [2] 49.150.116.127 (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 07:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Note when UNIX time = 3m and 4m?

It's noted within the article that UNIX time = 2000000 on Wed May 18 2033 03:33:20 GMT+0000 Should we also add for completion, when this time reaches 3 and 4 million on; Sat Jan 24 2065 05:20:00 GMT+0000 Tue Oct 02 2096 07:06:40 GMT+0000 respectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.237.2 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

Make the section 23rd Century look like -

 Not done: I see no such "Year n-thousand" or similar calendar specific entries; it doesn't appear suitable. No source was given as well. Note: I slightly reworded IP's request so that sections remain together. --Hemanthah (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"2077: The British Monarchy will turn 1,000 years old"?

@Cjrawrdan: I removed this patently wrong assertion but my edit has been inexplicably reverted. Aside from the fact that the "British monarchy" only dates to 1707 (or arguably 1603, when James VI and I became King of England), 1077 was not a significant date in the history of the English or Scottish crowns. I can only presume that the "anniversary" is based on a starting date of 1066 and excluding the 11-year interregnum. The problem: William I was King of England, and he was not even the first king of England. In short, this entry needs to be removed as it is not factual. --Hazhk (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I support removal unless clear sourcing can be provided. I think we would need a source that specifically says 2077 is the 1000th anniversary; it would be original research for us to decide to add 11 years for the interregnum. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Support removal. The statement's wording is also problematical in that it is conditional upon the monarchy's survival until that date, something which is not guaranteed. --Blurryman (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

3rd millenium is 2000.000 to 2999.999 not 2001 to 3000.

Those of us who were around to celebrate the new millenium, know that the event took place at 23:59 on 31/12/1999, not 23:59 of 31/12/2000. This second date was just an ordinary new year.

When speaking of ordinal times (even since biblical times), the ordinal refers to the end point, and '3rd millenium' refers to the years that refer to 3000. But as with centuries, the rule is that the count is of ones used and being used, so the second dozen of eggs would have used the first dozen, and any portion of the second.

Years are refered to the zero point, ie 0:00:00 on 1/Jan. This means that 2000 is the referant for the 'twentieth century' and for the 'second millenium', is 0:00.00 on 1/1 2000, and this is when we observed the new decade, century, and millenium beginning.

No one really celebrated 2001 any more than 2002 or 1999 beginning.

The same issue keeps coming up every century. At the buildup to 2000, the papers were full of clippings questioning this very matter, but to a man, the new century (1900), was brought in from the change from 8 to 9 in the hundred's. The iconic image of the new millenium is an odometer, changing all of its digits from 1999 to 2000.

We should also note that every decade is brought in when the digits on the dial change an impressive place, eg 1969.12.31 to 1970.01.01, after ten years of the sixties, the seventies were brought forward.

[The reference to the bible, is that although Jesus was crucified on a Friday, and was risen by the Sunday, it is on 'the third day', since any part of the day is taken to belong to the midnight following it.] Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The 2020s begins at 2020.0, the 203rd decade AD begins 2021.0 but no one seems to name decades like that. The day after December 31, 1BC was January 1 of year 1. AD. 2,000 years after that is 1+2000=2001 AD. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Wendy.krieger: There was no year 0, and you are confusing calendars which display ordinal or elapsing days/months/years with digital clocks which display elapsed seconds/minutes/hours, which is the common error often made and which led to the third millennium being celebrated a year early - not that that really bothered those who just saw it as any excuse to get royally drunk and party. --Blurryman (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Blurryman:. It seems quite extraordinary that organisations around the world would invest heavily in fireworks, to celebrate the arrival of 2000.000, were it not indeed the turn of the century and millenium. The particular show of bringing the new century in, went well into the afternoon of 1/1/2000, as countries brought in the new year.
The absence of a year 0, or that Jesus were born on 4BC, or that eleven days were deleted from the eighteenth century, or that 1/1/1 in the old style, is 3/1/1 in the new style, have no bearing on the argument. Days and months are not recokoned according to being elapsed, but to the current. The first month ends with the end of it, just as baby's first year ends with its first birthday.
Clocks, digital or othewise, observe elapsed time: that is to say, 8:40 means that forty minutes and eight hours have gone. Months and Days refer to the cycle in current use. At 1200 on 1/1, it is 0 mo, 0 days, 12 h 0 min into the year.
All years are celebrated at the beginning, that is all dates belonging to 2021 belong to a year we celebrate at 2021.0000, Likewise, the decade that runs from 1960.0000 to 1969.9999 is named after 1960. These are 'referant points' The centuries and millenia are named against the referant point to when they end, but the periods have always been to start the ordinals so that the referrant year ends that period, and the same referrant as for the year is used: the first millenium is 0.0000 to 999.9999, the second runs 1000.000 to 1999.999 and the third 2000.000 to 2999.999.
This means that the referrant for the second millenium is '2000', and the referrant for 2000 is 2000.0000, thus the second millenium ends at that point.
The counting of weeks of a year, is according to the count of thursdays, regardless of where the week begins. Thus years that have 53 weeks, have that many thursdays, even when monday is reckoned the start of the week.
Likewise, ordinal and cardinal designations of decades, follow the regular rules of ordinals and of cardinals, in that the referrant is the end or the beginning of the beginning of the name. Thus the first decade of a century runs 00 to 09, the second 10 to 19, and so forth. The decade called the 60s refer to the years that refer to '60, eg 1860-1869, 1960-69, 2060-68 etc. This is because the referrant here preceeds the interval.
The measure of 'under a metre' does not include the first zeros over the metre, and 'under a year' do not include the measures over it.
Regarding missing days, such as 3-13 Sept 1752, or 1/1 0000 to 3/1 0001, these are regarded as having been observed for the meaning of the calendar. The gregorian calendar was introduced around 600 AD, so all of the dates before them are missing.
It is also remarkable that you state the common views as 'erronous', without offering a single instance of where the alternate view is used. It is a level of arrogance to suppose that all but oneself is wrong, especially when the views can be easily demonstrated. Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The first millennium AD starts 12:00:00.000 a.m. January 1st, in the year 1 because that's when AD starts. It is the mathematical retardation of the inventor of Anno Domini that forces the millenniums to begin on XXX1 instead of as soon as the odometer rolls over like anyone who wasn't using a retarded number system would do. When AD first became popular in England they were still using Roman numerals which look like MDCCCLXXXVIII (1888) and have no zero. The only way they knew how to start a millennium was with I and to add another millennium they would just add another M forming MI and MMI (2001). Historians start the 1st millennium at January 1 Old Style just like all other dates before the Gregorian calendar but astronomers don't like the shitty inaccurate Julian calendar much so they sometimes use the proleptic Gregorian calendar which is a real thing and started 2 days later on Monday, January 3, 1 AD Old Style. Blame the shitty Roman numerals for this entire thread. The years used to start at 1 but then they started at 2 which is when the millennium should change but because of medieval England's mathematical retardation (India already had positional numbers) we can't have nice things. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
So what you propose is the calendar should have started on day 0 of year 0 of century 0 of millennium 0?
So right now we would live in the 2nd millennium, even though 2 millenniums have already past 22 years ago.
And we are now in the 3rd 1000 year period Jamesman666 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"2887" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2887 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#2887 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KylieTastic (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

2112: Queen Elizabeth's will to be public knowledge 2600:1700:88B6:52F:ADFA:1A22:961:538D (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

Change the years to 2000-3000 2600:1011:B194:85C2:A8AB:F856:7D02:65F7 (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See previous discussion on this page. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone find the intro a little clunky?

I get that it's talking about 3000AD but are many English speakers going to be confused what callendar system is in use?

Also 3000AD might be fine? Maybe pad it out with some of the methods of how these predictions are made, and how they are able to be certain of certain parts / timelines. Jaybest (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

Under 22nd century redirections it is written that: " the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II (which happened at 21:37)". It was not the assasination attempt that happened at that hour, but instead it was his death in 2005. 91.123.181.237 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I removed the unsourced claim. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

28th century

The video game franchise Halo is supposed to be set in the mid 26th century, not in the 28th century. DavGxyz (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Over certainty in future human events?

This isn't a comprehensive list but all of the following form a pattern where the wording is basically a crystal ball:

  • The first book from the Future Library project will be published, 100 years after being submitted by author Margaret Atwood.
  • The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) initiated by Stanford University will be concluded.
  • The film 100 Years by Robert Rodriguez and John Malkovich will be released, 100 years after its development finished in 2015.
  • 2117: A song titled "100 Years", composed by Pharrell Williams, will be released to the public. The song was performed by Williams at a private party in Shanghai, China, in 2017. The song is said to have addressed global warming.

For all we know the Future Library's archive might be set on fire, Rémy Martin might file for bankrupcy and the company that buys their assets wish to release the film early, and, IIRC, Pharrell's song is in a vault that is intentionally built to be affected by rising sea levels. 2803:4600:1116:F44:B0D4:7F0F:4E6F:3A20 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

Under 22nd century redirections it is written that: " the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II (which happened at 21:37)". It was not the assasination attempt that happened at that hour, but instead it was his death in 2005. 91.123.181.237 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I removed the unsourced claim. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

28th century

The video game franchise Halo is supposed to be set in the mid 26th century, not in the 28th century. DavGxyz (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Over certainty in future human events?

This isn't a comprehensive list but all of the following form a pattern where the wording is basically a crystal ball:

  • The first book from the Future Library project will be published, 100 years after being submitted by author Margaret Atwood.
  • The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) initiated by Stanford University will be concluded.
  • The film 100 Years by Robert Rodriguez and John Malkovich will be released, 100 years after its development finished in 2015.
  • 2117: A song titled "100 Years", composed by Pharrell Williams, will be released to the public. The song was performed by Williams at a private party in Shanghai, China, in 2017. The song is said to have addressed global warming.

For all we know the Future Library's archive might be set on fire, Rémy Martin might file for bankrupcy and the company that buys their assets wish to release the film early, and, IIRC, Pharrell's song is in a vault that is intentionally built to be affected by rising sea levels. 2803:4600:1116:F44:B0D4:7F0F:4E6F:3A20 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

2052

Why is the book 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years listed as a "prediction" for 2052, especially without any specific predictions from the book? I've read the article and it only makes rather vague predictions about economics, energy and the environment. I decided to post here first before removing it. The Vital One (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, its useless including it in this page. This page should show particular events that are scheduled to happen. Not a book on predictions Danial Bass (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
October 7, 2052: Vladimir Putin's 100th Birthday 137.101.62.123 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3rd_millennium/Archive_1&oldid=1245891276"