Talk:1st millennium

Requested move 3 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that the current names are correct per WP:CONSISTENCY, and WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Closer's note: Following representation on my talk page, I have looked again at the arguments, and I find that the "WP:COMMONNAME" is not really satisfied - generally "first millennium" is more common than "1st millennium", so I have struck that from the close. However, the WP:CONSISTENCY policy still applies, and a consensus of those responding says that we should be consistent, so I am not re-opening the move request.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• 1st millennium → First millennium
• 2nd millennium → Second millennium
• 3rd millennium → Third millennium
• 4th millennium → Fourth millennium
• 5th millennium → Fifth millennium
• 6th millennium → Sixth millennium
• 7th millennium → Seventh millennium
• 8th millennium → Eighth millennium
• 9th millennium → Ninth millennium
• 1st century → First century
• 2nd century → Second century
• 3rd century → Third century
• 4th century → Fourth century
• 5th century → Fifth century
• 6th century → Sixth century
• 7th century → Seventh century
• 8th century → Eighth century
• 9th century → Ninth century

– Per WP:MOS, numbers from 1 to 10 are spelled in words, as said by Jdcrutch. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I appreciate GeoffreyT2000's requesting this move, which I support. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:IAR / WP:CONSISTENCY with other centuries ; other use numbers instead of worlds 19th century, 16th century, etc. There is no reason to make these different, since they are part of a set of articles. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: The centuries listed by the anonymous IP address have numbers above nine. This proposal applies only to those with numbers nine and lower. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the millennia and centuries BC are included.

Reply: As they should be. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jdcrutch. If we did this, would we not also move years like 3 to years like Three? Even in formal writting, "3rd century" is very common over "Third century". tahc ^chat 18:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: JDCrutch supports the proposal, so opposition is not "per JDCrutch". We should indeed call the year Three "the year Three", though if we add an era to it, we can (but don't have to) write "the year 3 BCE", just as we would write "three gallons" but "3 gal." J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

His point is that per your argument we should do a bunch of utterly asinine moves from reasonable and concise current titles to titles that are really stupid (therefore we should ignore this guideline when it comes to century names).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The numerical depiction is far more common. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style is getting too ridiculous for its minimal worth. Dimadick (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Far more common where? Certainly not in the publishing world: see the Chicago Manual of Style and Associated Press, the BBC, the AMA, the Library of Congress, the Guardian and Observer, and the APA and MLA, to name but a few.

Google scholar does seem to indicate that "first century" is a lot more common than "1st century", [[1]], [[2]]. I still like the consistency argument however.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The numerical depiction is more common and more easily read. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, at some point you should try for some WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:ignore all rules. You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that the rules seem to contradict each other. For example This guideline seems to indicate that using numbers rather than words in exactly this situation is perfectly fine.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I corrected that error on 3 March, explaining my action on the talk page, and the MOS now follows its own rule regarding numbers. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you wrote the guideline, then you have absolutely no business commenting on this move discussion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom and User:Insertcleverphrasehere [sic]. —  AjaxSmack  02:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose These are ordinal numbers not cardinal numbers (integers), and temporal numbers don't fall under general usage in this way (does anyone actually write-out "ten AM" but draw the line at "11 AM"?). The nom, while otherwise making a good catch, is confusing the two types of numbers, and our WP:MOS should actually be clarified in all regards here rather than upending common usage. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kendrick7 says it very well, I can't add anything. Andrewa (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 1st millennium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/americas/200BC-AD600
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/europe/200BC-AD400
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/oceania/1500BC-AD1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/africa/332BC-AD400
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227014820/http://worldtimelines.org.uk/world/europe/AD400-800 to http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/europe/AD400-800
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&display_order=5&content_type_id=60600&mini_id=52979

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Julian-only? Dubious, Uncited.

As a proposed solution to the "Julian-only" assertion, I removed the specific-day detail which led to the need to specify which calendar in the first place. If we just say "the first thousand years" without specifying specific calendar dates, the question of "Julian, Gregorian, or both" becomes moot, and no uncited assertion either way need be made.

If someone strongly believes the "1st Millennium" is somehow officially defined in relation to the Julian Calendar only (and specifically *not* the Gregorian Calendar), then that may certainly be included! It's just that a reliable ref would also need to be included if such a (dubious) assertion were to be reinstated. Don't forget, it's the burden of the reinstater (see WP:burden} to provide that ref when reinstating something removed for being uncited and dubious. So, go find a ref. I would actually be pleased if you did. It would be interesting to learn more about this!  :-)

98.216.249.147 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"Modern Western Calendar" requires a definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

So, fix it then in another way. Don't replace dubious uncited material unless you can supply a reliable ref. I'll try some other wording, okay? See if you like it? If you don't like it, try to make it better. Don't continue to automatically replace the uncited material without a ref. If you really really think there's an official definition somewhere using the Julian calendar, If you really think you're so right, then prove it. The WP:burden is on you. 98.216.249.147 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, what's your real purpose? You seem to be "editing to win" instead of cooperating to help improve some less than perfect wording. Inventing a new quibble every time is not justification for repeated replacement of uncited material every time (word for word!).
I'm happy to try to address your complaints to my rewordings every time and I'm happy to try to make wording that suits you, but automatically replacing the dubious material every time isn't the right way to go about it. 98.216.249.147 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Julian calendar" is often used inappropriately. The Julian calendar was in effect from 46 BC, and as such has no inherent relation to the "Common Era" epoch. What is intended here is the "proleptic Julian calendar", i.e. the early modern (16th century) calendar with the "Common Era" (Dionysian) epoch applied to times before this was the case. The Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1582. There is a "proleptic Gregorian calendar", but it is not in practical use. The "1st millennium" according to the proleptic Gregorian calendar would shift the definition by a few days but this is a very eccentric exercise we should not introduce without basing it on some kind of reference. In historiography, when we say, for example, "the Vandals sacked Rome in June 455", it is implied that we are using the [proleptic] Julian calendar (i.e. the actual Julian calendar in use at the time, plus "proleptic" use of the AD epoch). --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Collages

It appears an RFC on collages on Wikiproject years will be interpreted to also ban collages in millenia articles. Users here may wish to participate. Koopinator (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)