Talk:Season 5 (battybarney2014's version)/@comment-2604:2000:1343:C444:D9B7:A997:6B1E:CABA-20190319205834/@comment-2604:2000:1343:C444:D9B7:A997:6B1E:CABA-20190319225347

USA
I think that you should add the United States under the Sub-category for all of the years, so its easy to get to national events if you live in the United States, like me.--67.168.180.94 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are articles such as 2000 in the United States for that. Qzm (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

405
I have changed the text of '405 the movie' from being the first short film to being 'a' short film as i would argue the 1998 short Troops better qualifies as the first major short on the net. See Kronschnabl & Rawlings 2004:18  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.26.136 (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Academy Awards
Oops! the year 2000 Academy Awards results were, of course, the year 2001 winners, the Academy Awards pages should be reformatted soon for more clarity. --Neeklamy

1990s
Oughtn't this page to be in decade 1990's? Fi 19:14 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
 * "2000 was also the first year of the 2000s decade." - is that true? then the 2000s decade spans two centuries?Cander0000 (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Americentrism
The sports section is somewhat biased towards the USA! markb
 * So add something that isn't. RickK | Talk 01:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Calendar
Ack. Can we please delete that ugly calendar, or at least move it to the bottom of the page? RickK | Talk 01:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I have removed it. It was ugly and no other year pages seem to have it, so I don't see why 2000 should be the odd one out. -- Popsracer 05:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bullet
Removed bullet in "see also" box as per discussion on WikiProject_Years --(talk to)BozMo 16:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Navigation
I've tentatively added a navbox template to replace the rather unattractive navigational elements at the top of the page. Dicussion at WikiProject Years. -- Seth Ilys 23:49, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Leap year
Huh? 2000 wasn't a leap year... Ashibaka &#9998; 22:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it definitely was (as all years divisible by 400 are)&mdash;Trevor Caira 16:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Attention
Can't find this page on 'Pages needing attention'. Does the notice still apply? Btljs

I couldn't find it there either, because that page doesn't have specific requests. Maybe it did once. I tidied a bit anyway. Robin Patterson 05:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prophecies
I'm sure there were a lot of crazy prophecies BEFORE 2000 on this page. We should leave them in, under a seperate, "prophecies that didnt come true, so there" category. It'd be a good lesson to everyone. Just take a look at the 2012 page.
 * That's the problem with Wikipedia. Even though there have been many, many, predictions about past years, they usually get cut out after the year is through. I don't know why- it really is interesting, what people thought would happen, and it is encyclopedic.bob bobato (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Boundaries between centuries
Curious about the use of the expression popular culture. I believe there are official contexts which define 2000 as the first year of a new century. Laurel Bush 15:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC).


 * It's the first year of a new century (as is any year), namely the years 2000-2099, but it isn't the beginning of the 21st Century in the Gregorian Calendar, which is 2001-2100. AndrewWTaylor 13:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Saying that the 21st century must start on 2001 rather than 2000 is a bit pedantic. Helicoptor 00:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No more pedantic than saying that the 21st century must start in 2001 instead of 2005. These words we use have meanings, and regardless of how sexy it is when the 9s all roll over to 0s, that's not what defines the beginning of a new century.

I just was passing through and saw this sillyness
January 1 - Millennium celebrations take place throughout the world, even though, provided you do not count 0 as a year, the new millennium did not technically begin until January 1, 2001. Y2K causes widespread computer failures and malfunctions that many in the news media had predicted. casting the world into a non electronic dark age.

January 1 - The United stated launches nuclear missiles at china and Russia without the use of computers, they accidently hit England Rkrgoat 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing it out...I've reverted WWIII and trimmed the bloat in that January 1 entry. -- Jim Douglas 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
an entry on January 1st seems to say that the electronics sector was AFRIAD for Y2K to happen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Munkee madness (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * sorry bout that, i forgot to sign it Munkee madness 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

there, thats better

"The Year 2000"
Seems odd to me, but a lot of people say "the year 2000" but not, e.g., "the year 1999" or "the year 2005". If anyone has some info on why this is that may improve the article. 77.209.23.112 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) whoops, normally it signs me in automatically, didn't that time. EdX20 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you find any reliable sources on this? If not, it's probably original research.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Before 2000, it was often referred to as 'the year 2000', but since then it is usually referred to simply as 2000. It would be interesting to know why that is. Best name (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

bit late, but I'm pretty sure it was because it is pronounced the same as the number, whereas basically for as long as we have been useing years like that they had been pronounced differently to the number (nineteen-ninety-nine as opposed to one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine[one thousand nine hundred ninety nine if you're american]) and people wanted to be clear about what they were talking about. 130.216.69.39 (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional leap year
Since century years that aren't leap years like 1900 and 1800 are labeled as exceptional common years, since they are divisble by 4 but not leap years, should century years that are leap years like 1600 and 2000 be labeled as exceptional leap years since most years divisble by 100 arent leap years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.248.49 (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Y2K and computers
As a comment to a recent edit, Moncrief wrote "MOST computers 'thought' it was 1900?? Huh? The problems were fixed by changing to four digits. And computers can't think anyway. WTF?????" Agreed. Computers can't think.

I began my computer programming career in 1971 on a DEC PDP-8 having a whopping 8K of memory. (Not 8 gig, not 8 meg, that's 8K. Not even RAM, that was magnetic core memory.  No hard drive, not even floppies, it used magnetic tape and punched-hole paper tape.  Took a half hour to compile a decent-sized program.)  The year 2000 was a distant dream. Two digits were plenty to record the year in a date/timestamp.

Fast-forward to the year 2001, when I visited my old home town and happened to bump into someone who "inherited" my software after I had left. She commented in a mildly critical tone, "You know, that software you wrote wasn't Y2K compliant." I said, "You mean that old software I wrote more than a quarter of a century ago is still being used today?"

Yes, my software wasn't Y2K compliant. Foolish me for assuming that it would either be scrapped, replaced or at least overhauled in 25+ years.

The DEC PDP-8? That got replaced by a PDP-11, then a Vax, then a who knows what. As for DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation), it got bought by Compaq, which got bought by HP.

But my old Fortran code was still chugging along, even if it wasn't Y2K compliant. -- Art Smart (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

2000 start of the New millenium and 3rd century
I just wanted to say that 2000 isn't apart of the 20th century, it's also apart of the wrong millenium. It is apart of the 21st century and third millenium. That is why 2000 is know as the "Millenial year" or just the "millenials".Cakechild —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakechild (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The year 2000 is the last year of both the 20th century and the 2nd millenium, but it is the first year of the 2000s decade. Intolerance for Idiots (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) but if its the last year of the 20th century it is also the last year of the 1990s because of this thats why nothing happened in the year 2000 because it wasnt really the change of the new millenium,nor the century,nor decade.
 * For example you think that the 90s started in january 1 1990 NO In 1990 eighties music and fashion were still popular and in 1991 everything changed drastically for example desert storm,the fall of the soviet union,music changed and also fashion changed the same with 2000
 * IMHO it's a bit more complicated. The current standard for dates is ISO 8601 and that has a year zero, and therefore, the year 2000 is now part of the third millennium. Note that the year zero was added to ISO 8601 in 2000, so the year 2000 clearly started as last year of the second millennium, and by changing conventions mid-term ended as first year of the third millennium.  Standards often codify common practice, and this change of ISO 8601 did that.  Get over it. --Bernd (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, changes in fashion or certain events do not usher in a new decade, numbers do. Eighties fashion and music was still popular up through about 1994 as the fashion and music of the new decade was becoming defined. Look at the 1960s, the fashions, music and lifestyles of the fifties were still popular up until 1964 when The Beatles came to America. After that different styles of music, the hippy movement started, mod fashion took over, TV went to color, etc. 1960 was still the start of the 1960s though.Bjoh249 (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Deaths
Some deaths that occurred in 2000 are on both this article and the Deaths in 2000 article, some are on that article only, and some are on this article only. What is or should be the rule / criteria / guideline for which notable deaths are included in each article? Best name (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there is a Deaths in 2000 article already, I would say remove them all from this page, and keep it as a See Also. Unless a president or major...major world figure died, someone whose death would have global importance - not every random "celebrity".Cander0000 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for births and deaths is in WP:RY.  ttonyb (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. WP:RY only applies to deaths after the birth of Wikipedia (2002).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I still say 2000 was the start of the 3rd millennium and 21st century
No there wasn't a year 0 according to the Gregorian Calendar, but how does that make the year 2000 a part of the 2nd millennium and 20th century?? The year is already stated as the start of the 2000s decade, and the year is 2-something, not 19-something. Bjoh249 (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's still a failed proposal, as I noted when you brought this up earlier. Wikipedia is based on consensus and reliable sources, not "truth", and consensus and reliable sources are against you.  "Truth" is against you, also, but that's not important.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't believe I have ever talked to you on here. I made a perfectly good argument and who are you to talk that way to me?? Bjoh249 (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, about you having brought it up before, although you do seem to have trouble with WP:TALK protocols, making changes to a section I already replied to. Nonetheless, it has been brought up before, and rejected.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It is wrong. This is elementary school type stuff here. I am pretty sure many made the argument that 2000 does begin the new millennium, it is just that these regular joe administrators only want what they believe on here and nothing else. I think my argument can better be explained with this article: http://www.mindspring.com/~jimvb/year2000.htm Bjoh249 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing your reasons; however, just because it is in print does not make it true. This has been discussed many, many times and the current version is the consensus of those discussions.   ttonyb  (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And exactly how are you wikipedia guys experts on this?? Bjoh249 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Also the Year 2000 was a leap year and had only 28 days in February! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.40.43 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ??? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So why does this page say 2000 is part of the 20th century when the 21st century page says the century began on January 1, 2000? SupremeRulerVic (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Never mind, I read it wrong. 2000 is part of the 20th century, my bad. SupremeRulerVic (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/03/03/war.crimes.bosnia.02
 * In 2000 on 2011-05-25 06:57:38, 404 Not Found
 * In 2000 on 2011-06-10 04:56:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://esa.un.org/unpp
 * In 2000 on 2011-05-25 06:57:38, 404 Object Not Found
 * In 2000 on 2011-06-10 04:56:33, 404 Object Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics
There is no Nobel Prize for Economics. The proper title is The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, which was establised in 1968. The first prize was awarded the following year. I notice that up to 1997 it's fairly accurate (although, being an encyclopedia I think the title should be completely accurate) and gradually it becomes the Nobel Prize for Economics. I refer you to the Nobel Prize website: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/ Thinman10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Izabella Yurieva
I question whether she is notable enough for a listing here. The article is only a paragraph long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 2000. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216015214/http://esa.un.org/unpp to http://esa.un.org/unpp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

XFL
The announcement of the XFL doesn't even belong in 2000 in United States sports (if it existed). The start might belong in 2001 in United States sports, and possibly even in 2001 in football. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe 2001 in sports? — Arthur Rubin  (talk)
 * Yep, it's there in 2001 in sports — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

In the Honor of the 2000s
The 1st Century: 1-100 The 2nd Century: 101-200 The 3rd Century: 201-300 The 4th Century: 301-400 The 5th Century: 401-500 The 6th Century: 501-600 The 7th Century: 601-700 The 8th Century: 701-800 The 9th Century: 801-900 The 10th Century: 901-1000 The 11th Century: 1001-1100 The 12th Century: 1101-1200 The 13th Century: 1201-1300 The 14th Century: 1301-1400 The 15th Century: 1401-1500 The 16th Century: 1501-1600 The 17th Century: 1601-1700 The 18th Century: 1701-1800 The 19th Century: 1801-1899 The 20th Century: 1900-1999

Note: The Honor of the 21st Century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.226.32 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What idea are you attempting to convey? It is not clear what kind of changes or issues you are raising with that post.--&#9790;Loriendrew&#9789; &#9743;(ring-ring)  14:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2000. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803153757/http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/ to http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5oJFbfeAD?url=http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Smith_PRL_84_4184_%282000%29.pdf to http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Smith_PRL_84_4184_%282000%29.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2000. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831075015/http://calendarhome.com/clink/y2000.html to http://www.calendarhome.com/clink/y2000.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

UEFA final
Why is this more notable than all the other UEFA finals? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One problem with that question is that the now-defunct RY project completely rejected this kind of entry, so it's difficult to prove to you what is more or less notable about this particular final. One thing worth bearing in mind I suppose would be that it's a global sport (i.e. not American football) and it was broadcast globally to more than a hundred countries.  I don't think posting this one suggests that it's in any way more or less notable than any other "UEFA finals" (sic).  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. for reasons why this kind of thing should be added, just see the following stuff which is currently included and apparently okay by you etc....


 * March 25 – The first Monster Jam World Finals is held in Las Vegas.
 * March 26 – The Seattle Kingdome is demolished by implosion.
 * March 27 – The Phillips explosion of 2000 kills 1 and injures 71 in Pasadena, Texas.
 * March 28 – A tornado hits Fort Worth, Texas, damaging the downtown area.
 * Time to start looking closer to home rather than rejecting more international entries I would suggest. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. those aren't just tidbits, that's a run of four meaningless entries, utterly US-centric, all of which have precisely zero encyclopedic value. Let's see if they get removed now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Although this article was rarely subject to WP:RY, those seem not to belong.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good, those were just the tip of the iceberg, so we'll have a proper clear out now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Faim Aydogdiyev
He may meet WP:NFOOTBALL, having played in one professional game (our article doesn't say the opposing team was in a professional league.) I'd say we should wait until he plays another game. Scoring a goal in a professional game would be even better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

2nd or 3rd millennium
Is 2000 part of the 2nd or 3rd millennium? K175 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Not necessary to add picture of individual gold medalist
I noticed on events section a picture of an individual gold medalist. I find it unnecessary. Also many won gold medal the year 2000, so what makes this particular gold medal winner worth having a picture and other winners not. If you add one gold medal winner's picture add all gold medal winner picture or do not add any at all. Picture of individual achievement that has many others with similar achievement is not note worthy at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.156.188 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)