This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Why is there a question mark in the article? Is an encyclopedia article supposed to ask when Jesus was born. I don't think so. Hoof3821:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is 0 BC in the infobox along with the years if the article (rightly) notes there is no such year? Even the decade (AD) 0s does not have year 0 in the infobox. — Adhemar18:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct that there is no year zero, but I do not believe that it is correct that the last decade BC/BCE and first decade AD/CE therefore would have only nine years. The scheme goes from Jan 1, 10 BCE down to midnight Dec 31, 1 BC/BCE--a full ten years--and then from Jan 1, 1 AD/CE through Dec 31 10 AD/CE--again a full ten years. The year 1, of course, is the first year of the first century, which ended (although noone so calculated at the time) on Dec 31, 100 AD/CE. Because there was no year zero, of course, and because a decade has ten years and a century has one hundred, the most recent millennium began Jan 1, 2001 AD/CE. Jan 1, 2000 AD/CE was merely the first day of the last year of the twentieth century, as indicated by its number 2000--twenty times 100 years. For these reasons, I believe that the reference in the article to nine year decades shortchanges the users of this encyclopedia.75.181.48.12103:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)JLBagwell[reply]
The problem is that decades are popularly construed as going from the "0" year to the "9" year, like the 1960s (1960-1969). By that standard, AD 0-9 would be a decade, but since there is no AD 0, that leaves 1-9 (nine years), and the same for the preceding "BC" decade. *Dan T.*04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was acknowledged that 1 Jan 2001 was the start of the third millennium before people back down to ill-educated yokels for popularity reasons. 17:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.0.186 (talk)
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!
The lead of the article says that "0s BC is usually considered the last decade of the 1st century BC", but is that really the case? I have never seen it used that way outside of Wikipedia and a quick google search does not seem to indicate that it is the case. The lead also seems to imply that using a 9 year period as this decade is something occasionally done outside of Wikipedia ("However, like the 0s, the number of years in the 0s BC is not always clearly defined"). I'm also not sure why there should be a discussion about the time of Jesus' birth in the lead.
I propose changing the lead by removing everything except "This article concerns the period 9 BC – 1 BC, the last nine years before the Anno Domini era". Andreaseksted (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
