Should the decades start in the "0" year or the "1" year?

This long article for example:
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/the-decades-that-invented-the-future-part-8-1981-1990/
https://www.wired.com/2013/02/the-decades-that-invented-the-future-part-11-2001-2010/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3lLTwtLMxM

You can't be serious if you're asking this question.

This actually makes sense because centuries and millenniums start at "1" (e.g. the 21st century and 3rd millennium started at 2001.) So, this decade would be 2011-2020. 2010 would still be part of the 2000's, or should I say the 2001's.  ;D ;D ;D

This actually makes sense because centuries and millenniums start at "1" (e.g. the 21st century and 3rd millennium started at 2001.) So, this decade would be 2011-2020. 2010 would still be part of the 2000's, or should I say the 2001's.  ;D ;D ;D


First Decade of the 21st Century = 2001-2010

The 00s = 2000-2009

Problem solved. Only the nerdiest of nerds though will go by the first definition, since it's easier for the brain to process the second definition. ;)

What?
I rather have it as 2000s,2010s,2020s ect.

I like the first definition because my core childhood peaks in 2010, and I'd rather be a First Decade of the 21st Century kid than a 2010's kid.

You're mostly a late 2000s and Early 2010s kid but yeah.
I would just stay as a kid of the 2010s. I mean it isn't bad to be a kid of the second decade of the Millennium and Century. IMO

I like the first definition because my core childhood peaks in 2010, and I'd rather be a First Decade of the 21st Century kid than a 2010's kid.


Okay, just saying, it's super nerdy to group decades that way. Just don't expect songs like "Love The Way You Lie" or "OMG" to be on VH1's "I Love the 00s", or on Absolute Radio 00s instead of songs like "Oops I Did It Again" or "Bye Bye Bye".  ;D

It would be a problem if we really cared about decades before the 20th century, but we don't. Things like «70s=1970-1979» or «80s=1980-1989» are now too cemented in pop culture to really change that way. But it's not a ridiculous claim as the first decade of the first millenium technically starts with a «1-year» instead of a 0 :p.

Why do we need to argue this? "Late 6" is the perfect starting point. Take late 2006, for example, when they changed the menus at McDonalds to LCD screens and Cartoon Network stopped showing Zoopy Doopy Bang Wang and The Kids in favor of that awful Hannah Montanna show. The real 10's began that faithful night.

A decade can start at any time!

The decade 1990s includes all the years that start with "nineteen ninety". 2000, last I checked does not have those words in it, so it is not '90s. Simple as that.

The question actually isn't quite as dumb as some of you seem to think.

Yes, a century is any 100 year period, but when we speak of "The Twentieth Century A.D." we mean specifically the time period of 1901-2000.  Similarly, "The Third Millennium A.D." is the period from 2001-3000.

We do have a term for the period 1900-1999; it's called "The Nineteen Hundreds", which is A century, but not "The Twentieth Century A.D." and not "The Nineteenth Century A.D." either.

Similarly, we have a term for the period 1970-1979; it's called "The Nineteen Seventies" or "The Seventies" for short because, well, most of us never experienced any other years whose MOD 100 were 70, 71, 72, ... 79.  (As I mentioned in another thread, my paternal grandmother was one of the (relatively) few who did experience at least parts of two different seventies decades.)

So what about the period 1971-1980?  If "The Twentieth Century A.D." starts in 1901, shouldn't the decades be 1901-1910, followed by 1911-1920, etc.?

Well, there IS a very, very logical name for 1971-1980: "The One Hundred Ninety-Eighth Decade A.D." or "The 198th Decade" or "The Eighth Decade" for short.  (Think about it for a minute.  Do you see where it comes from?  Are you starting to see where I'm going with this?)  It's just that, for whatever reason, nobody ever uses it, or even thinks to call 1971-1980 anything.

You see, it all goes back to the problem that Dionysius Exiguus, the person who invented our dating system, starting counting the years at 1 instead of 0.  He designated Jesus' birth at the year 1 A.D.  (We'll leave aside the issue that his birth year was probably not the year we call 1 A.D., but more likely 3 B.C.)  To save us all this confusion such as found in this thread, he should've designated it the year 0 or the Zeroeth Year.  We should have, therefore, logically designated 0-99 as the Zeroeth Century, 0-999 the Zeroeth Millennium, etc.

Dionysius Exiguus was actually aware of the concept of zero, but he didn't use it in his calendar scheme (either for the year of birth or for the year prior to birth) for whatever reason.  He started everything at 1, and so we're stuck with that.

Perhaps one reason is because 0 wasn't really fully accepted as a number back in the day.  People weren't really sure that zero was "A Thing" (to use modern parlance).  Actually, many people probably weren't even aware of the concept of zero back then.  It wasn't until relatively recent times that people started to have "Zero Consciousness".  The idea of something being "zeroeth" is even newer.  The concept of "zeroeth" didn't really become widely popular until the computer age or maybe the scientific age at the earliest (see physicists talk about "zeroeth order", etc.).

Actually, a better reason becomes evident when we start thinking more about the computer analogy.

Suppose a person enters an empty room.  In computer thinking, that person might be designated "Person 0" or "Zeroeth Person".  The next person to enter the room is "Person 1".  The next after that is "Person 2".  Then "Person 3".  "Person 4".  Finally, "Person 5".  We now have six people in the room.  Count them:


int  i;
int  count = 0;
for (i=0; i<=5; i++) { count++; }
printf ("%d\n", count);


But the last person to enter the room (which is now full of six people) is the "Fifth Person".  You see, there's a conflict between the logical way and the intuitive way we use language.  The "First Person" is not the "first person to enter the room".  The "First Person" is the "second person to enter the room"; the "first person to enter the room" is the "Zeroeth Person".  Similarly, the second century since Jesus (100-199) would be designated "The First Century A.D." under our more logical scheme.

TL;DR;  If you want to call 1981-1990 the "ninth decade", go ahead.  But don't be surprised if you get a lot of confused reactions from other people.

The decade 1990s includes all the years that start with "nineteen ninety". 2000, last I checked does not have those words in it, so it is not '90s. Simple as that.

The 1st decade would be 1 A.D. to 10 A.D.

The 200th decade would be 1991 to 2000.

The 1st decade would be 1 A.D. to 10 A.D.

The 200th decade would be 1991 to 2000.


Yes, but you said the 2000s would include 2010, which is never true (unless by the 2000s, you meant the century or millennium).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3lLTwtLMxM